If there is a Christian God, He's Calvinist.

[L.B.]

Here's the deal:

 

If:

mankind is born sinful, unable to do any work of merit towards salvation, unable, as the Westminster Catechism says, "to recommend himself to God in any way", and totally devoid of any interest in God or love for God,

 

Then:

 

the only way for a person to have faith is for God to spiritually change that person, bringing them spiritual life and causing them to have the ability to desire God and desire salvation

 

Thus:

 

People are either CHOSEN by God to be spiritually changed and thus capable of turning to God, or they are irrevocably doomed to a Hell they were created to exist in.
*************************************************************************************************************************

 

So, people, it goes like this: if God is capable of changing people, and that's the only way they can be saved, then he didn't want (and doesn't want) billions of people to be saved.

 

The Christian God is necessarily responsible for what is known as monergism - the action whereby a person can be saved originates from ONE source, namely, God, and never from man.

 

In short, that means that any Christian who accepts the doctrine of "original sin" and the total corruption of the soul of man, making them unable to turn to God, necessarily accepts that their God does not love all people and does not want all to be saved, in total contradiction of Bible verses that specifically say otherwise.

 

The only way for a person to be able to "get saved" by believing WITHOUT the prior, monergistic, sovereign action of God would be if their sinful nature was not total, and their inability to choose God was not total.

 

That would make human beings truly free agents of their own destinies, and it would logically negate the concept of an almighty, absolutely sovereign deity.

 

Which is it? Does the arbitrary, capricious son of a bitch in the sky want billions of people to suffer eternally in Hell because He so chooses, or is He indeed NOT almighty, and thus powerless to save those who freely reject Him?

 

If He was almighty, even a human's willful rejection would not matter, because God would override their choice.

 

If He is almighty, He hates on a level that is incomprehensible.

[Rounin]

Even if you insert free will into the mix, that doesn't contribute meaningfully to explaining God's apparent lack of action.

After all, if he's just sitting there and pretending not to exist while people are marching off to hell, how does shouting "free will, free will" make that any better?

The whole canned "free will" argument is an attempt to avoid a very uncomfortable question about God's morality by people who can't allow themselves to think about it.

[Ellinas]

Free will -v- religious determinism is a logical inconsistency simply ignored by most Christians.  I've never understood why a Calvinist would preach, or what an Armenian would make of texts concerning election.

 

The most "honest" approach I've come across is those who say "The bible teaches both free will and election; I believe both and cannot understand the mystery of how god unites the two".  I know some who say just that.  And who seem incapable of realising that it is just a way of burying their heads in the theoillogical sand.

 

[disillusioned]

I've always said that Calvinism is one of the few forms of Christianity that actually tries to make sense.

[♦ ficino ♦]

3 hours ago, Ellinas said:

 

The most "honest" approach I've come across is those who say "The bible teaches both free will and election; I believe both and cannot understand the mystery of how god unites the two". 

We've discussed the free will claim on and off over the years on here. I've never seen free will taught in the Bible. The Bible talks about people making choices, and it holds them responsible for their sins, so they'll be punished. There are verses that represent God as though wanting people to choose Him. But it does not say that the human will is free to choose outcomes that are not determined by God in advance. 

 

Ordinary Clay used to push the notion of God's middle knowledge: God knows what you would choose freely in every possible world, and God actualizes one of the possible worlds, with all causes built in from creation. So God's predestination is dependent on what you would freely choose.

 

Several of us argued that this is both unscriptural and, i at least argued, falls victim to an equivocation fallacy, since the counterpart "you" in a counterfactual world is not identical to "you" in the actual world.  

[Wertbag]

Always my #1 issue, God won't communicate. We are told He wants a personal relationship with us yet we don't hear from Him. Either He can't or won't, either way conflicts with Christian teachings.

The argument that we have to have freewill doesn't work because it has to say that facts and knowledge stop freewill which is simply wrong. I know that stealing a car will get me arrested, I still have freewill to break the law I just know what the result will be and therefore make an informed decision to make the right choice.

[dangitbobby83]

It is, at the very least, the most logically consistent of the belief systems of christianity. (Assuming, of course, we accept the supernatural as real)

 

Either god is all-knowing and there is no free will or he isn't and free will exists.