The Problem of Divine Miscommunication: Does God Love Us All?
A question that is closely related to the Christian debate over salvation, but is rarely discussed, is whether God loves all human beings...at least one Reformed Christian apologist is brave enough and has the intellectual honesty to follow the Calvinist line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. Link.There's a reason why I say Calvinism is bullshit!
24 comments:
2.
Dr. Morey is a rebel indeed. I used to be one of his biggest admirers. Now as I am looking in from the outside, I cannot believe how brainwashed I was.
Yes you are correct, if a Calvinist follows his line of thinking to it’s conclusion they will embrace “God does not love everyone”
I used to challenge people by saying “If you are a true Calvinist, then you should walk up to someone and tell them God does not love them”. This would really infuriate the people I told this. They would try to get out of it by saying thing like this, ” God loves and hates people at the same time”, “It is a love hate relationship”. “A human shows different types of love, A man does not love his brother the same way he loves his wife”. Therefore, God loves his chosen people with a special intimate love in the same way a man loves his bride”.
Of course these Christians would use all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid telling people God does not love them. I would just come right out and tell people “God hates You”. Of course that did not make me a very popular dude, but I was just carrying my theology out to it’s logical conclusion.
Another way of getting out of it is "God has two wills"
John Piper wrote a whole book about it.
The problem of miscommunication isn't that serious if you don't believe that some interpretations are better than others.
Besides, there is a great deal of common ground between even calvinists and free will theists.
I would just come right out and tell people “God hates You”.
But then you did not love them as yourself or you could not love God with all your being since God's soverign plan was to withold what they needed most (which is what you were to desire most for them if you loved them as yourself).
You cannot follow the two greatest commandments fully and believe in reprobation (that is gauranteed damnation before one ever lives a morally responsible life).
Does god love us all?
I wish more Christians would think this over. I think (once someone has decided to believe in God)that there is ample evidence, and lines of reasoning to show that he doesn't love us all.
At bare minimum I think it shows that many Christians conception of God must be inaccurate, even if there does turn out to be a bearded sky man.
But, for me as an Atheist/Agnostic depending on how people choose to define those words, this is a bit like debating Cookie monster's favorite cookie, only more silly because I have actual evidence that a creature named Cookie monster exists.
Its not a Calvinist idea that God does not love everyone, it is stated in the bible. It is only a recent invention of an egalitarian all love and no justice God. Created by a business model Christianity to suit the needs of peoples feelings rather than what the bible actually says.
Rob R said,
"...The problem of miscommunication isn't that serious if you don't believe that some interpretations are better than others."
The REAL problem is that interpretetion is needed at all.
If God had communicated the "revelation" well in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing about it now.
The REAL problem is that interpretetion is needed at all.
Then your problem is with all human communication.
If God had communicated the "revelation" well in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing about it now.
I don't see why this is the case at all. You don't have to get much further than highschool to be exposed to all sorts of great literature and speaches, even scientific literature require training to fully interpret and get into the depth of what is said.
I know that the ideal is supposed to be that we are just little autonomous thinkers who can examine everything and come away with only one possible understanding. But that isn't in fact the way we are. We are social creatures who need to deal with things not on just an individualistic level but also on a communal level depending upon the skills of those who have advanced in myriad skills.
Scripture wasn't given just to individuals. It was given to a community and it needs to be read as a community taking advantage of all of our skills to advance and deepen our understanding of it. Why should it be any different for Creatures who were created as social beings who are to depend upon the wisdom of others within the community?
@robR
Of course some interpretations are better than others, that’s why they are called “better or clearer interpretations”
Does not Biblical hermeneutics teach that you interpret the unknown from the known, and the unclear by what is clear? Wouldn’t this be admitting that there are passages of scripture that are unknown and unclear?
I would just come right out and tell people “God hates You”
But then you did not love them as yourself or you could not love God with all your being since God's soverign plan was to withold what they needed most (which is what you were to desire most for them if you loved them as yourself).
According to who? You. I am not gong to tern this into an argument about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I wasted to many years of my life reading and arguing both points. All I can say is I read many, many classic and modern books about Calvinism and my previous statements are true. Most Calvinists believe that there are two wills of God and there are different types of Love that must be defined. It is not wrong for a Calvinist to say or conclude “God hates you, or does not love you, or he wants to destroy you.
You cannot follow the two greatest commandments fully and believe in reprobation (that is gauranteed damnation before one ever lives a morally responsible life).
This is a bold face assertion and opinion by you. It’s actually not even a proposition, propositions have to be either true or false, remember
Rob R,
Can you agree that we should measure our confidence against the evidence in all areas of inquiry? Your theology and faith are comprised of extraordinary claims such as that a divine being revealed decipherable truths to mankind in the bible. The specific argument posited by the Problem of Divine Miscommunication is that since Christians themselves cannot agree on the fundamental truths of said divine revelation we should at best be agnostic towards it. The lack of consensus amongst those who claim the bible as a reliable source of truth makes it more probable that the bible is not divine in origin. The more space you take up arguing for your specific theology the more you end up supporting this argument. Can't you see that?
-Louis
post 1 of 3
exreformed
Does not Biblical hermeneutics teach that you interpret the unknown from the known, and the unclear by what is clear? Wouldn’t this be admitting that there are passages of scripture that are unknown and unclear?
ex, I have never been overly impressed with this notion. I say, sure, interpret what is unclear from the clear but be prepared to alter your understanding of what you thought was clear. What is clear to us after all wasn't just translated from another language but comes from another historical context, social context and may involve different concept metaphors. Do I believe that the gospel message comes through? sure, but the Christian must be prepared to go well beyond the surface to a deeper understanding. I once thought the calvinist understanding of certain scriptures were the best most faithful ones. This dawned on me after having been an arminian all my life. Then faced with what was even more clear to me, the profound evil of reprobation, I almsot lost my faith and gave up Christianity for nonsense. So I too dedicated years to studying and discussing the issue with a different result from yours. I persevered through the doubt and I came out with a deeper understanding of so many issues even beyond this one.
According to who? You. I am not gong to tern this into an argument about Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
The logic is unavoidable. you cannot follow the two greatest commandments and believe in reprobation. If you don't want to follow this tangent, that is fine with me. I still though observe over an over again that many atheists still think in the same patterns that they celebrated even as Christians. Many atheists are oddly true to their denominations and religious biases that they used to hold.
I wasted to many years of my life reading and arguing both points.
So you know how the new perspective on Paul has laid waste to many Calvinist prooftexts? And Open theism has done even more? The tradition of arminianism, the free will tradition of the church fathers before Augustine has continued to advance to this day.
post 2 of 3
my previous statements are true. Most Calvinists believe that there are two wills of God and there are different types of Love that must be defined.
And what I said remains true. There are different meanings of hate. It would be odd to insist that the phrase "will of God" may have more than one definition, which is true of all language but deny it of the idea of hate.
This is a bold face assertion and opinion by you.
Supported in brief by me. I can make you a more clear but longer argument.
It’s actually not even a proposition, propositions have to be either true or false, remember
That's a rather odd statement. What I said can be investigated towards the aim of discerning it to be true or false. And it most certainly is a proposition that can be symbolized as ~ C & (A & B) which of course has truth conditions. If the logic text book you are working through is good, it will tell you how to derive a truth table to explore all the truth conditions for that proposition. that's just the basic stuff as well.
post 3 of 3
Enchanted naturalist, what you suggest is what I call the fallacious argument from controversy. It is a type of a logically fallacious appeal to authority accept it is sort of the opposite kind of the usual examples of the fallacious appeal to authority. It states that because authorities (even though what you said is even less demanding than that not having referenced authorities in the field, granted you could fix that easily) are in disagreement, we are not justified in taking a position even if we have reasons for what we believe and why we disagree with the authorities.
As for the notion that Christians disagree on all the fundamentals, that is hardly the case. Above, you will find me stating a very strong opposition to Calvinism, yet I consider that I have more common ground with them than I have disagreements. When I make the argument in full that I have alluded to, I often freely admit that while I am demonstrating a flaw in calvinism that goes to the heart of our faith, I still recognize that there are calvinsists who deeply love God, please him and no doubt many who are closer to him than I am. But that doesn't mean that they don't have a huge problem.
Given the scriptural example of Solomon, I am free to recognize that John Calvin himself has shaped the church in good ways and founded a tradition that has many good aspects for the church in spite of the beef I have with some of it. And that tradition is very much a part of my own (after all, Arminius was theologian in the reformed tradition). And very much like Solomon, I suspect that Calvin will not see the glory of God but will be judged in the eschaton and his light will go out forever for faithlessness to the law of love. And that actually doesn't have that much to do with individualistic predestination but his role in the government of Geneva.
@RobR
So you know how the new perspective on Paul has laid waste to many Calvinist prooftexts? And Open theism has done even more? The tradition of arminianism, the free will tradition of the church fathers before Augustine has continued to advance to this day.
I would not be so bold as to state that the N.P. lays waste to many Calvinistic Proof texts. Actually as of now I really don’t give a rip about that issue anymore. I do remember John Piper, R.C. Sproul and most the Calvinist authors have rebutted the N.T.
I remember D.A. Carson wrote a whole book pointing out the “so called heresies of “Open Theism. If you hold to those two views then in the eyes of them you are not a true believer and you are gong to hell. Welcome to my camp RobR.
That's a rather odd statement. What I said can be investigated towards the aim of discerning it to be true or false. And it most certainly is a proposition that can be symbolized as ~ C & (A & B) which of course has truth conditions. If the logic text book you are working through is good, it will tell you how to derive a truth table to explore all the truth conditions for that proposition. that's just the basic stuff as well.
I have just worked my way through the first few units of the Copi text book on logic. So far the only exercises I have completed are on diagramming arguments and discerning arguments from explanations. It’s actually pretty complicated stuff so I am only taking in a little at a time. I want to work my way through it and understand it. The next unit I will read has to do with deduction and induction.
Actually as of now I really don’t give a rip about that issue anymore.
You have a funny way of showing that with the moniker of "exreformed," the way you critique responses that arise from free will theism which often has been with fallacious appeals to authority. You demonstrate what I've observed over and over again. Many atheists still cling to the problematic ways of thinking that they developed as Christians, often that are particular to a certain theological perspectives. And the strange thing is that atheists remain as stuck in these ways of thinking that they were as Christians.
I do remember John Piper, R.C. Sproul and most the Calvinist authors have rebutted the N.T.
Which tells me nothing as to whether it was quality or not. And having some familiarity with both of them, I doubt it was (especially with sproul).
I've also witnessed Piper's incompetence in an exchange with Thomas Talbott on the very problem I raised here. Again, this says nothing about the quality of his critique of the new perspective. I haven't examined it and Piper is very low on my priorities. But since nothing is presented here accept for appeals to authorities, I remain with my position.
I'm aware that the New Perpsecitive has its critics and since it represents a wide range of scholars with a variety of positions, I'm sure some of that criticism may be well deserved.
But we cannot go back. The discussion and the playing field of free will theism vs. theological determinism has progressed and changed, and with these changes, it seems that theological determinism has lost biblical ground.
I remember D.A. Carson wrote a whole book pointing out the “so called heresies of “Open Theism.
Lot's of people wrote books pointing out the problem with atheism. I doubt that will deter you so I don't know why you think this would deter me. That they are out there isn't less important than what they actually say and whether it is of quality.
If you hold to those two views then in the eyes of them you are not a true believer
I really don't know their faith in God enough to really judge whether the same might be true for them. Theology after all is relevant but a poor litmus test.
And I would never confuse them with Jesus. Who I am to him is what matters most.
RobR
I was saying "I don't give a rip about the N.P" not the destruction Calvinist causes on peoples psyche.
You said: But since nothing is presented here accept for appeals to authorities, I remain with my position.
I was telling you what I know of the subject that you brought up. I don't give a rip about your position on the N.P., which you brought up by the way.
The original post has to do with "Dr Morey" who carries out Calvinism to it's logical conclusion.
Rob R,
Biblical theology is unlike any other area of inquiry in that it claims access to ultimate, supernatural, divine truths revealed in the Bible upon which one bases one's entire worldview. We must hold theology to a higher standard if we are to believe it is in fact divine in origin. This is what you seem to not understand. You have good reasons to believe the theology you do, and so do other Christians who contradict you. That's the problem. Either God didn't make his message clear (even to his own followers!) and thus it is unknowable, or theology is a completely human artifact. My money is on the latter. Either way it destroys the credibility of faith.
-Louis
@Louis
Thank You very much, that is what I have been trying to say to him for over a month. It relay is that simple. But of course fundamentalists just have a way with semantic tricks that they pawn off as being intelligent. I am sure allot of them do it subconsciously. What do you expect from a bankrupt world view?
exreformed,
I was saying "I don't give a rip about the N.P" not the destruction Calvinist causes on peoples psyche.
That's an odd statement to make, that you don't give a rip about a historical development that has a significant ability to undermine much of the evidence for what you consider psychologically damaging.
The original post has to do with "Dr Morey" who carries out Calvinism to it's logical conclusion.
The original post was about throwing one's arms up at the sight of controversy and concluding that giving up on what is most faithful to scripture seems best. Going into the details of the controversy is not such an unreasonable tangent though we can and I have attended to the the fallacy of controversy here and on enchanted.naturalists website as well. It is nothing less than anti-intellectual.
Louis
We must hold theology to a higher standard if we are to believe it is in fact divine in origin.
The standard you hold it too is entirely dependent upon your own theological position, your "dignum dei" you ideas of the way God ought to be ought to be and ought to act. That's not something that can't be taken for granted. I have such beliefs, I held divine theology to a higher standard and that is why I almost lost my faith when researching this very issue.
You have good reasons to believe the theology you do, and so do other Christians who contradict you. That's the problem.
The problem is that stopping short here does not do the issue justice. You want to complain of clarity, you're going to have to dig into the details and see beyond the superficial observation that we all have good reasons. Keep digging, and some of those reasons become poor. Heck, I don't even think all the arguments for free will theism are good ones. But I find it to be much better and to have Gotten better.
Either God didn't make his message clear (even to his own followers!) and thus it is unknowable, or theology is a completely human artifact.
It's a false dichotomy. Throughout scripture, it is made clear that we are responsible to dedicate effort to studying the scriptures, seeking the council of the wise and utilizing our full mental resources. And this all towards a set of documents not written to you or me but to a community at a specific time for the use of that community through the following age. We are to read it as a community utilizing our best minds paying close attention to the original situation and nature of the community at that time and of course doing so prayerfully.
Furthermore, I don't know why you'd think all of scripture must be completely clear to just anyone. It won't even all be relevant to any one individual. You say you hold God to a higher standard. The standard that I hold God to is that he meets my need and I don't personally need to understand everything. But there was a time in my life when I needed this and I thank God for what I learned at that time. Here, even the need to understand some part of the scriptural message facilitated exactly what scripture is to do, be a part of the context for increasing our relationship with God.
2nd post, reposted for some editing
This is somewhat tangential, but if I haven't said it already, the intellectual laziness here to refuse to consider that one perspective here may indeed be better than another within a religion does not speak well to me of the outsider's perspective. But I have been taught the superiority of seeking the insider's perspective when critiquing a view, to be cautious about relying on the critics description of things.
Of course, many here were insiders. How strange it is that the former insider's perspective, the interest in seeking the best understanding of something formerly agreed upon degrades when leaving that view. It doesn't have to, but I observe that for many, it does.
@ RobR
So is Dr. Morey going to hell? He would say that about you. So much for a mighty holy spirit that lives inside you and him.
So is Dr. Morey going to hell? He would say that about you.
Ex, Morey seems to me to be sinfully divisive. If he is headed towards judgment, it is not because he is a calvinist and believes in individualistic predestination (including reprobation). One might say that it is not our place to think we can know such things. I don't say that at all, but I personally would not say I know. Jesus spoke against the pharisees who piled burdons upon the people which worked against God's grace. It's easy for me to see that Morey is doing the same telling us who reject reprobation and that there are those whom God never loved ought to leave the church is doing the same thing. It is very parellel. Is it actually the same thing? I won't say for sure. I am very confident that he is very mistaken, but how God will handle him for some very bad mistakes beyond calvinism (again, his divisiveness against people who have been bought with the blood of Jesus) is not something that I personally know, nor do I need to know.
God's grace is far more generous than Morey conceives or you apparently had conceived, but it is not an absolute free for all where anything goes.
So much for a mighty holy spirit that lives inside you and him.
It might be that the Holy Spirit doesn't live within him. It might be that he is not in tune with the Holy spirit. It is certainly the case that the holy spirit does not remove our free will and our need to continue to grow (and refusing to believe in libertarian free will certainly does not mean one does not have it).
Just a clarification here:
I said:
It might be that he is not in tune with the Holy spirit.
I meant to suggest the possibility that he isn't in tune with the Holy spirit on this subject.
Rob R,
The standard you hold it too is entirely dependent upon your own theological position, your "dignum dei" you ideas of the way God ought to be ought to be and ought to act.
Let me correct you. The standard I hold to is entirely dependent upon evidence and reason as opposed to faith, including reason's mandates of the way God ought to be and ought to act and Christianity ought to appear if in fact God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and if in fact Christianity is not simply a human artifact.
In what sense is this a superficial observation?
Let me correct you. The standard I hold to is entirely dependent upon evidence and reason as opposed to faith, including reason's mandates of the way God ought to be and ought to act and Christianity ought to appear if in fact God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and if in fact Christianity is not simply a human artifact.
Then what reason and evidence do you have for your theological position here? (and who says you need faith to do theology... that is anymore than any other intellectual pursuit which all require faith, ie trust beyond what either cannot be proven or at least is concievably wrong.
I believe God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent and I don't see why what you say is true.
Post a Comment