mnkbdky

The last paragraph of this quote is very telling, "Spark's views on Calvinism and Predestination."

What needs to be addressed, perhaps, is Spark's possible misunderstanding of both Catholic and Calvinist theology. Not everyone one writes on such matters understands them. This makes for very interesting conversations; giving the real position and the misinterpretation?

From the first quote it does appear that Spark understands predestination as mere foreknowledge. However, she is mistaken if she thinks Catholic theology teaches God does not know "the beginning and the end."

Most forms of monotheism (i.e., Xian, Muslim, and Hindu) hold to God's absolute foreknowledge of future events.

The big question might be, "Did Spark understand the doctrines of both denominations?"

It appears as though she did not.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

The last paragraph of this quote is very telling, "Spark's views on Calvinism and Predestination."

What needs to be addressed, perhaps, is Spark's possible misunderstanding of both Catholic and Calvinist theology. Not everyone one who writes on such matters understands them. This makes for very interesting conversations; giving the real position and the misinterpretation?

From the first quote it does appear that Spark understands predestination as mere foreknowledge. However, she is mistaken if she thinks Catholic theology states that God does not know "the beginning and the end."

Most forms of monotheism (i.e., Xian, Muslim, and Hindu) hold to God's absolute foreknowledge of future events.

The big question might be, "Did Spark understand the doctrines of both denominations?"

It appears as though she did not.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

Wiploc

I am taken aback. Can it be that you think the named parties do not contradict themselves?


Take judicial notice, it is common knowledge. If I said "president's lie," or, "the ocean is wet," would you want proof?


Prove it. Or, in the alternative, show that you proved every assertion you made in your first post on this thread.


Of course not, but I'm astonished that you would question it. Once he was a Catholic; then he was a protestant. Isn't that proof enough?


Aha! A full concession. Thank you. That's all I asserted.


As far as I know, this is a unique claim. You can't effectively trip me up by redefining words after I use them.


I'm sorry you feel ad hominem'ed. Note that I included myself when I mentioned you. But you want evidence, proof that you contradict yourself? Fine. You say, above (in this message), "Furthermore, people change their minds. For instance, I was once an atheist..."

Further, in your first post to this thread, you:

1. Luiseach shouldn't teach about religion unless he knew a whole lot about it himself.

2. I shouldn't teach about religion unless I know a whole lot about it myself.

3. You taught us about religion.

4. You said you don't know a lot about it yourself.

And then in a later post you said,

5. You do know a lot about it.

So, you contradict yourself. This is not meant to be an insult or "attack." You asked me for evidence that you are not infallible; I provide the evidence only because you requested it.


And if I went and got you a quotation, you would say it doesn't count unless he believed that as the same time as he believed what he said in your quote, right? In fact, nothing you've said amounts to the claim that you don't already know of quotes in which Calvin contradicted (in the normal use of the word "contradicted") what he said in your quote, right?


Here we disagree. Luther was miserable as a Catholic because he was utterly unable to do good by his own efforts. He sought faith, and he tried to do good deeds, but rather than finding knowledge of his salvation, he found that he could never satisfy god by his own efforts. Then god tapped him, gave him faith, and inspired him to do good works. Faith is something god did to him, not something he achieved himself.

He concluded that we are totally corrupt, and cannot cooperate with our own salvation. It has to be totally done by god. And once you are tapped, then yes, you have the sure and absolute knowledge of your salvation --- but not because you sought faith or tried to do good deeds.


You know, if you are going to contradict me on a philosophy board, you ought to give proof.

I'm just kidding really. It's just that you take such a snide tone that you are fun to bait. I was happy to paint Calvinism in broad strokes for Luiseach, and I'm happy to put Smeagle on my ignore list. You're somewhere in the middle. I think we could have a productive discussion on some topics, but I don't see, "what Calvin really thought" about something as a hopeful topic. I'm sure people have debated exactly what you want to debate for hundreds of years without settling anything. And you have a frustrating tendency to redefine words ("merit," "contradict," "represent," and "works" come to mind) in non-productive ways. (Okay, okay, you use them in ways that strike me as non-productive.) So for now anyway, I'm offering to bail on this sub-thread.

I guess I come to this point because you told Smeagle to stay off your side. Until then I thought you were both just being contrary for the sake of contrariness. Until then, I was moved by your snideness to be snide back. Now I think I'll wait until we have a more promising topic, and hope we can get on better next time around.
crc

Bill Snedden

...I was predestined to reply.

Actually, your quote doesn't demonstrate all of that...

The quote you posted clearly shows that one cannot become one of the elect. One is either elect or not. Attempting to have faith and do good deeds will not gain one salvation if one was not predestined for salvation.

From my own meager readings of Calvin (the "Institutes", a couple of sermons, the titles of which escape me) and other "Calvinists" like Jonathan Edwards, it appears clear that they believed that "election" had an outward manifestation in one's behavior, and that the elect would tend toward a holy and godly life. This is to say that while those "entrenched in evil actions" may strive to do good, if they are not of the elect, they will be unable to do good (consistently). See Book III, Chapter 24 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion ("Election confirmed by the calling of God. The reprobate bring upon themselves the righteous destruction to which they are doomed."), for example.

In addition, regardless of what Calvin himself may have said or taught, it is undoubtedly true that millions believed that the elect would behave in a manner befitting their status and vice versa. The sociologist Max Weber did some very interesting and compelling work on the influence of the "Protestant Ethic" on capitalism and capitalist economies. It appears to be clear that if Calvin thought he were saying something different, it didn't come across that way to millions of people.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

mnkbdky

The term used in theological circles to denotes those who deny God's foreknoledge is, open-theist or open-ness theology.

Luiseach

I would like to draw attention to the fact that I did not post the passage attributed to me by mnkbdky...someone else posted this.

Thank you.

[Edited to add]

N.B. Actually, it was wiploc who said '(However, I've met some, uh, I'll call them neoChristians on the net who say god can't know the future, and I assume they would differ on this point.)'.

Luiseach

What a charming man he must have been....

mnkbdky

This is a misunderstanding of the position. It is true, according to Calvinist theology, one can not come to be the elect unless he is already choosen. However, that does preclude one coming to faith and gaining salvation.

On a synchronic understanding of election no-one becomes one of the elect. However, on a diachronic understanding one does become one of the elect and obtain their salvation. That is, the person who was once not of the elect--a non-believer, becomes one of the elect--a believer. As Calvin says, "The elect are gathered into Christ's flock by a call not immediately at birth, and not all at the same time, but according as it pleases God to dispense his grace to them" [3.24.10], and, ". . . the firmness of our election is joined to our calling . . . establishing our assurance. [3.24.6]. By coming to a sure and firmknowledge of your election one may become one of God's elect, diachronically. Though, from his eternal decree we have always been elect.

So, yes one does gain their election or salvation. It is given/applied to them at their appointed time. Though, the decree was made before time (metaphorically speaking).

I think my earlier quotion of Calvin suffices here.

"If election has as its goal holiness of life, it ought rather to arouse and goad us eagerly to set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing. What a great difference there is between these two things; to cease well-doing because election is sufficient for salvation, and to devote ourselves to the pursuit of good as the appoint goal of election!" [3.21.12].

However, good works only confirm our calling by that fact that they have their origin in God. Again Calvin says, "We now see that the saints have not a confidence in works that either attributes anything to their merit, since they regard them solely as gifts from God which they may recognize his goodness and as signs of the calling by which they realize their election . . ." [3.14.18].

While one can be sure of their election, no one can be sure that they are the reprobate. While they are still living it is always possible for them to come to faith and thus prove that they were/are actually one of the elect; that their coming to faith was decreed before time (metaphorically speaking) and applied ay their appropriate time.

It is true, though, that the truly reprobate, according to Calvin, will not come to faith, nor do any good works, since they too are gifts from God.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. The numbers in brackets refer to Calvin Institutes and are in the order of Book, Chapter, Section.

mnkbdky

Duly noted and changed. Sorry for the mix up.

mnkbdky

Being that this is a philosophy forum and not a Calvinist forum shouldn't were be discussing the truth or falsity of the philosophical/theological claim that was made by louiseach, namely

My argument was predestination does not preclude responsibility or punishment, omniscience does not imply predestination--understood as causal determination--and neither does omniscience effect God's omnipotence in any way (see my first post on this topic).

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. Besides I think I have laid to rest any questions concerning what Calvin held regarding the doctrine of predestination.