Luiseach

Ah...okay...thanks for the clarification. Good point (I'll use the analogy).

keyser_soze

Do more, repeat the verses, it's there in black and white.

mnkbdky

Please do not think that I am mocking you, but if you teach literature then I do believe that is what you should stick to teaching. It is not your place to enter into theological matters--especially ones you admit to not knowing much about. Perhaps, the best thing do is to say that you are not sure how the two would fit together. Though, you could encourage your student to research the topic on their own time.

When encouraging your student(s) to study the topic you should advise him/her to be very skeptical about information gathered on the internet. It is a great place to start(maybe), but—it is my opinion—all info gather from the net should be considered suspect. You need no credentials to be published on the net. Serious research should begin and end with respected scholars in the area of research. Also, even though internet sites may reference scholars—as one of the above sites did, namely, Millard Erickson—the internet source should still be considered suspect until the original source has been read.

Your understanding of predestination is incorrect. You are correct in stating that it is a central tenet of Calvinism. However, your definition is mistaken. Predestination does not simply mean that “God is omniscient and knows the past, present and future; he knows what human beings will do; he knows which human beings will go to Heaven and which ones will go to Hell.”

Rather it is a much stronger claim. According to Calvin himself predestination is, “God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death [Inst. 3.21.5]” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 926). It is not that God merely knows where the person will end up, but rather that God has created the person for that end and determined that it will take place. Some have called this double predestination. Those who end up in hell were created and determined to end up there and mutatis mutandis for those in heaven. The purpose of those in hell is to demonstrate God’s hatred of sin; to show his utter contempt for evil and to illustrate his justice by punishing evil. The purpose of those in heaven is to reveal his mercy; to exemplify his love. Calvinist theology is centered around the glory of God. Everything that occurs is to make obvious to us his character. It is not about human comfort. Whether or not this doctrine is uncompassionate or makes God out to be a tyrant it is not be to be interpreted that way. Predestination is a doctrine of comfort (for those who are saved). It gives meaning and purpose to those who suffer—as Calvin did. A person who is suffering great injustices or extreme pain may be comforted to know that what they are going through is for God’s glory. Furthermore, the suffer has a sure knowledge that God loves them and that the salvation is secure--predestination guarantees the person of faith their spot in heaven, it provides a sure knowledge that they will enjoy eternal bliss. Whether this doctrine is true or not, it is surely a comforting thought for those who suffer.



God’s knowledge of the truth value of future human events does not mean that God caused them to happen. God’s foreknowledge is completely compatible libertarian free-will. I will not get into that argument though since it has been adequately dealt with elsewhere (see my post here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...&pagenumber=2.

Now before we move on let’s get some definitions straight concerning free-will. The Calvinist is not using free-will in the same way as you seemed to be using it. You seem to understand free-will as libertarian free-will.

Libertarian free-will is commonly defined as such, “For every action A subject S has every ability to either perform or refrain from A.” According to this type of freedom there can be no contingently sufficient antecedent conditions that bring about one’s actions. That is, it cannot be true that if S is placed in situation X, S will do A. Libertarian free-will requires that S be able to either perform or refrain from A is all situations.

The Calvinist, though, rejects libertarian free-will. They will adhere to either soft determinism (also called compatiblistic free-will) or hard determinism. Hard determinism can be defined as, “For every action A subject S has no ability to do otherwise.” Where as soft determinism will say, “For every action A subject S has the ability to either perform A or refrain from A, however, in situation X, S will desire to perform A.” The ability to either perform or refrain in soft-determinism is a hypothetical. The compatiblist holds that for every action there are contingently sufficient antecedent conditions that bring about that action.

The compatiblist claims that hard determinism rules out free-will because even had the subject wanted to do otherwise they could not have; they would be forced to do the action against their will. In contrast, soft-determinism allows for free-will because the subject desires to perform or refrain from the action, they are not constrained to do anything against their will. Whether soft-determinism is really any different than hard-determinism is debatable, but there are those who think so.

There is also the fatalist view of determinism. This view states, “For every action A there are necessary and sufficient antecedent conditions that bring about that action.” For the fatalist everything happens only as it can happen. The way the world was, is and will be, is the only way it could ever be. There are no alternatives.

Normally, the Calvinist will be a soft-determinist. It is possible that they be fatalists or hard-determinists, but they cannot be libertarians—that is, if they want to be consistent and not hold contradictory beliefs.

With this statement you seem to be of the opinion that someone cannot be held morally responsible unless they have libertarian free-will. Is this correct? I do no think so. Suppose that someone has built an android, DATA, and has created him so that he has two desires. The first desire is to continue his existence. The second desire is that whenever someone says, “Hello”, the android desires to murder the person who said it. Let us also suppose that the creator has created the android so that it cannot be reprogrammed. The creator then places the android into the world and the inevitable happens, he kills the first innocent person who says “Hello”. Who is responsible for the murder? It seems to me the answer is, both—the creator and the robot, but in different ways. The creator is responsible because he created him to do this. The android is guilty because he performed the act. The fact the android is only acting out his program is moot. The robot cannot go “unpunished” or get away scot-free. We could not allow the android, even if it is only acting out his program, to continue to exist. That would be ludicrous. He would continue to murder. The only way to stop him would be to destroy him. But he has the desire to continue his existence and so he protests his “punishment.” However, because we know that he will continue to kill all those who say “hello” the right thing to do—since everyone says “hello”—is to destroy him.

Determination does not rid agents of responsibility or punishment.

It should also be noted that the creator is not, technically, a murderer. That is, the creator never participated in the act of killing an innocent person. The creator only programmed him to kill. This is not to deny the creator responsibility in the death of the person. He is certainly responsible for their death. However, technically, he didn’t murder them. He did not commit the act of murder. He is an accomplice to murder.

The Calvinist is not without a response to the charge that God is an accomplice to murder, though. The Calvinist believes that we are all guilty and deserve death. When murder is defined as, the intentional killing of an innocent person, if we are guilty, then to kill us is not murder. The non-Calvinist might object that God determined that we would be guilty. According to the above illustration, though, determinism does not rid one of responsibility. Therefore, God is just in punishing those who commit such acts and merciful by forgiving others. By creating such a world God has demonstrated the actions he approves and disapproves. God has demonstrated that justice is good and so is mercy, murder is punishable and love is desirable.


Thank,

--mnkbdky

Luiseach

lol

keyser_soze

If we stuck to only topics we knew about, it would be a very boring world. Do you consider his foray into the topics wasted? Would you consider bringing such a topic into discussion to be wasted time? And if so, why? BTW, the bible IS literature.

mnkbdky

I did not mean (s)he should not learn about theological matters. I merely said she should not teach them, especially if (s)he has no training in the matter. In fact, I think this is one of the best venues to facilitate learning about such matter. This is a good place to discuss the topic. A class about literature is not, unless the person is compitent in it. I know nothing about literature, therefore, if I am teaching a class about Calvin(ism) I should not discuss how Calvin(ism) related to literature. It cuts both ways.

Luiseach

Indeed.

keyser_soze

I didn't say good literature though, don't go thinking I would insinuate such a thing. Actually, from a literary point of view, it's utter crap. You can tell it's a bunch of goat herders. The greeks, now they wrote good literature. Itinerate fishermen beat desert dwelling goat herders any day for penmanship. And don't even get me started on the romans...

Luiseach

lol Agreed.


Oh, and don't forget the Brits, their expertise in the realm of literature is not infrequently acknowledged. And Milton's version of Genesis in Paradise Lost beats that of the biblical hacks any day...fittingly, he was greatly influenced by the Greeks and Romans (whose excellence in writing you have already pointed out).

keyser_soze

Long poems are difficult for me...Give me a first person history though, and I'm gravy for the duration.