Kentucky fried Calvin

im-sanctified-beatified

You know that feeling after you’ve just had a hair cut, that fresh, sharp feeling, well whatever that feeling is, that’s the polar opposite of what happens when you talk at length with a confirmed Calvinist. No freshness, just stales phrases, blunt talking points, “The question isn’t why God passes over some of us, the question is…why does he save anybody at all.”

Ooh, sparkly, well no actually the question WAS why does he pass over anybody if he’s in total control and could redeem all of humanity with their “freedom” in tact. That was the question, Calvinists just don’t like the question, they don’t like any questions. Being friends with a Calvinist is kind of like dating a feminist glamour model, mentally she hates everything about herself, none of her strutting, posing, pouting and sexually charged behaviours match her supposed commitment to levelling the playing field and gaining an equal platform with men. The only platforms she’s got are her shoes.

Calvinists do likewise, everything is glory and holiness and not my will but your will, meanwhile they’re some of the most arrogant, prideful, unholy wafflers ever to grace the public space. This is something I’ve learnt recently, Calvinism is only good for two things, puffing people up, and serving as a foil. Nobody needs any explanation about Calvinism puffing people up, it’s widely known, Gods supposed holy truth, a truth which the Bible says leads into peace, joy and humility, led “reformed” people into greater arrogance. An encounter with the Spirit leads into humility and joy, an encounter with Calvinism makes the early believers obnoxious, ugly and arrogant. Still, a foil. Calvinists collectively are a foil. What’s that?

What makes a character interesting? In literature, authors will sometimes highlight certain aspects of a character’s personality by using a foil: a supporting character who has a contrasting personality and set of values. Putting the foil and main character in close proximity helps draw readers’ attention to the latter’s attributes.

Calvinism is the modern worlds foil, because unbelievers just love highlighting the despicable views and logical loopholes in Calvinism over against the humane, inclusive ideas that modernity surely has pulled out of thin air. Atheists and others cast Calvinists and their odious ideas as Christianity, after which all of the qualities that modern life has robbed from true historic Christianity are cast as being inventions of the enlightened secularists.

“The truth will be hated!” Calvinists cry, the problem with this belief is that atheists only hate Calvinists on a personal level, they think you’re insufferable people, they love your beliefs, your beliefs are useful, your beliefs prank themselves so hard that half of the unbelievers job is already done for them. So, who’s the foil I’m conversing with today? It’s Hammy! Hamster, Hammer stir, well he’s a Calvinist, and he shows up to answer a challenging question I shared in a Christian forum online. Lets see how he does…


GST-674-07-770x300


amensign.gif~c200

Cormack: When a child is raped, is God responsible and did he decree that rape?”

Everyone who’s a fan of James White will remember this question, asked by George Bryson. I’m pretty sure on later broadcasts of the dividing line Dr. White christened it “the Bryson abomination.” It’s really two questions in one. Is God responsible for the rape (1,) and did God decree the rape (2.)

In his situation, how would you answer the question?

Carl: No and No…

Such actions are driven by the wickedness of Satan who will ultimately be judged, along with those who allowed themselves to be instruments of his ghastly plans.

Hammerster: I’d answer it like Dr. White. For whatever reason, God had a purpose for allowing it to happen.

Happy camper: Job explains it clearly

God removes his hand of protection but Satan is responsible for the action taken.

Hammerster: Which boils down to God ordaining that it would happen.

amensign.gif~c200

Cormack: So the answers would be yes to question 1, yes to question 2, and a side note to say it’s for a good purpose we don’t yet know, leaving the conclusion to that persons pain and suffering as a mystery. If the child isn’t elect to salvation under Calvinism, wouldn’t that pain and suffering be to serve God’s good purposes and pleasure, a purpose served at the expense of the lost child’s pain.

Hammerster: Purpose, yes. Pleasure, I don’t think I can answer that.

amensign.gif~c200

Cormack: Pardon me, maybe that wasn’t entirely clear on my part, the “pleasure” would be found in the purpose, a pleasing purpose, not pleasure in the child’s suffering, since God “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” You believe God is pleased with his eternal decree, right? Albeit the idea of an eternal, determining decree gets God glory at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Hammerster: I’m aware of your intent. It serves His purpose. That doesn’t mean He takes pleasure in the act itself.*

post-64231-this-is-fine-dog-fire-comic-Im-N7mp

Carl @ hammerster: NO

Who’s will was involved in the action?

Cormack: Not the act. Does God take pleasure in the purpose? Is the decree, a decree which in some small part pre determines the rape of countless children, pleasing to him?

Hammerster: His purpose in everything is His glory. So I suppose you could say He takes pleasure in His purpose[took us a little jiggering at the cage to get there] I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t think He takes pleasure in the act itself.

Hammerster @ Carl: Just a heads up. This isn’t the Debate a Calvinist section.* With that said…

you-cant-lose-a-debate-if-you-dont-turn-up

The rapists will was involved. It was involved in the same way Satan’s will was involved in Job. And we know who controlled that situation.

Hazelelponi: Everything is for God’s glory. Does it glorify God and amplify His mercy and Grace to take that rapist and give them a new heart later down the road?

Yes.

Does it glorify God and exemplify His longsuffering nature and outstretched Hand to give the sinner leave to act out their own nature until which time it is clear to the man that His punishment is perfectly just?

Yes.

Does it glorify God and exemplify His power and just nature when He takes vengeance upon the man for the real crimes He committed against one of God’s children?

Yes.

Does it glorify God when God brings His perfect peace and love to this innocent child who was harmed?

Yes… [Does it glorify God at the expense of an unelect child who’s raped, tortured and killed, then sent into hell for eternity. That is the question. You can just feel the one sided spirit of people when they start asking themselves their own questions, even answering their own questions.] 

We will have trials and tribulations on this earth but we take joy in it all because it is all for His glory…

2 Corinthians 12:9

“But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me”

amensign.gif~c200

Cormack: My issue is centred around the fact that God’s purpose (a purpose somehow partly satisfied by the child’s rape) won’t end in Him bringing perfect peace and love to the child. The child is not among the elect. If we believe in eternal torment, the rape is part of a wider plan, a plan that ends with the abused person ultimately in hell. God (according to Calvinism) gets glory by this seemingly inglorious situation. This appears to be a total dishonour.

“His purpose in everything is his glory.” Do you feel God gets equal glory from one man being damned forever (hating Him the entire time,) and another man going on to praise, worship and adore Him forever? Are the situations equal in terms of how glorious they make God, or is He already maximally glorious.

Hammerster:

This appears to be a total dishonour.

Maybe this is a good place to jump in. It seems to me that you are assuming that God owes some sort goodness to this child. Is that correct?

“His purpose in everything is his glory.” Do you feel God gets equal glory from one man being damned forever (hating Him the entire time,) and another man going on to praise, worship and adore Him forever? Are the situations equal in terms of how glorious they make God, or is He already maximally glorious.

He gets equal glory for both.*

short answer

Cormack: The cursed and the blessed,

having totally different fates,

behaving in completely opposite ways,

with one group spending an eternity in the presence of God,

and the other group made separate from the grace of God’s peace, in torment forever,

You believe these polar opposites result in “equal glory” to God. Doesn’t that sound contradictory, absurd even.

Isn’t God already maximally glorious?

Maybe this is a good place to jump in. It seems to me that you are assuming that God owes some sort goodness to this child. Is that correct?

I don’t believe so. A God of perfect love would express His sovereignty in “some sort of goodness to this child.” So for lack of a better term, God obligates Himself by virtue of who He is.

An all powerful God gaining glory at the expense of inglorious, helping, harmless, abused children doesn’t ring true, wouldn’t you agree?

Jesus is the greatest, prepared to die for the least of us. The glorious in love dying to lift up the inglorious.

Not the greatest taking glory from the weakest.

1wteis

Hammerster: First question. No.

Second question, yes. He never changes. What changes, though, is our understanding of Him. The more we know, the more we love and adore. It’s like looking at a drop of water. Pretty cool with the naked eye, but look with a magnifying glass, and you see a lot more. Under a microscope, way more than that. And the more powerful the microscope, the more you see and the more awesome it is.

That’s what’s meant by God receiving more glory.

I don’t believe so. A God of perfect love would express His sovereignty in “some sort of goodness to this child.” So for lack of a better term, God obligates Himself by virtue of who He is.

An all powerful God gaining glory at the expense of inglorious, helping, harmless, abused children doesn’t ring true, wouldn’t you agree?

Jesus is the greatest, prepared to die for the least of us. The glorious in love dying to lift up the inglorious.

Not the greatest taking glory from the weakest.

There’s that assumption that there’s something worthy about that child to where God must show some sort of kindness to that child or else He’s not good.*

Childs-Play-Chucky-Doll-Evil

There’s that strawman again. This is what I mean by lack of freshness around Calvinists,  however you try to slice the conversation, they always end up being trampled by the absurdity of their own beliefs. So much that they have to sacrifice all commonsense, lowering their God to the level of omnipotent child burner in eternity. This is why in other conversations we see Calvinists writing “children aren’t harmless!” or that they’re coming from the womb with venom in their mouths. Here’s an interesting side note, just for the sake of enlightening each other, pound for pound, based upon violent actions Vs. non violent action, what age group do you think tops the scales as the most violent in all of humanity? Turns out its toddlers, 2 year old kids are the most aggressive. “But Oldschool, isn’t that a win for Calvinists everywhere?” Of course not, you boob! The point so many people are making regarding the child issue and Calvinism isn’t that children aren’t snotty little biters, the point is that in light of an eternal, powerful, unstoppable God, these lives are helpless and harmless, he adds to the pain by making them hopeless, “doomed from the womb.” Heck a child is harmless to me, let alone God almighty. So why is he (supposedly) tormenting them for the “glory” of it? Where is the glory in it?

That’s not biblical, though. He owes us nothing but hell because of sin. That He shows grace to any of us is, well, grace.

amensign.gif~c200

Cormack: Where exactly do you see that assumption? A more narrow quote, if possible. Because I’ve explicitly written that’s not my view. My view is that a God of perfect love would express His sovereignty by showing kindness to the child.

That view, which I’ve already showed, is entirely focused on Gods essence and attributes. It’s entirely to do with who He is and how He governs His creation. It’s clearly not about any deserving qualities in the creation.

And the more powerful the microscope, the more you see and the more awesome it is. That’s what’s meant by God receiving more glory.

This makes slightly more sense, but I’m not so sure it’s avoiding the problem. The water droplet as Gods glory, let’s go deeper into that idea. The glorified believers have a microscope, the damned only greater blindness and torment, which of the glories of God are being magnified in their eternal torment?

It can’t be wrath, since wrath isn’t an attribute of God.

Looking forward to your thoughts, God bless.

of-hamsters-and-men

Hammerster: Sorry for my misunderstanding.

If your view is correct, then the kindest thing He could do would be to save everyone. Or at least stopping the rape.

It can’t be wrath, since wrath isn’t an attribute of God.

Well, wrath is an attribute of God. So maybe we need to examine that.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

— Romans 1:18

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

— Ephesians 5:6

For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,

— Colossians 3:6


Read the reply…

Afterthoughts

I really wish there was more to this conversation, sadly the website deleted the entire thread for being too combative, can you imagine?! After Hammy bowed out another Calvinist did indeed take up the sword, posting waves and waves of text from a fella named Augustus Toplady. Now Toplady is not a lady, they were a man, and not a top man, rather it turns out they were an antagonist and well known troll against the Wesley brothers, so after many years I can safely say whose camp I’m nearer to, historically speaking.

My new conversation buddy ranted and raved about the dreaded Arminian, although I’m not one, they believe certain things about the nature of man which I can’t agree with. My reserved way of replying wasn’t enabling my new friend to figure out my beliefs, for which they had nothing to attack. They were left with an invisible audience of readers to appeal to, “AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ARMINIAN IS WRONG YET AGAIN…”

To this level of conversation there’s a go to response that always works wonder. I ask who they’re talking to, the debater was replying to me after all, so why the strange appeal. This was one jab too far, and the site stepped in to stop this wilful display of truth telling, blaming me for the entire catastrophe. So I did the only thing a humble man would do, I debated the moderator in private!

This was all in good fun and should sure up certain beliefs of ours, ideas like we are truly free, that The Lord is a God of love and provision, that glory is something God has always had, since He’s always on His throne, ruling (not ravaging) creation. Believing those things might not stroke our ego, we don’t get to be the chosen ones receiving a secret gift not purchased for the rest of humanity, but they’re the truth of Gods word and the testimony of His Spirit, shared liberally to all who will seek and receive Him. Until our friends in the grips of a deterministic fever realise this, they’ll forever be the unbelievers perfect patsy.

― T. C. M

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s