This is great stuff.
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-6-whats-at-stake-the-character-of-god-and-the-truth-of-the-gospel/

That is one long Calvinist hit piece, lol. TLDR.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That is one long Calvinist hit piece, lol. TLDR.

---

Check out the website. And for someone who depends on the Bible and Scripture, how do you reconcile this?

Truth.

I scrolled through until my thumb got sore; didn't see much scripture in that link.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I scrolled through until my thumb got sore; didn't see much scripture in that link.

---

You might like this one better.

https://goodnewsapologetics.com/2022/09/27/a-theological-response-to-g-k-beales-article-an-exegetical-and-theological-consideration-of-the-hardening-of-pharaohs-heart-in-exodus-4-14-and-romans-9/

dermdoc said:

---

This is great stuff.
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-6-whats-at-stake-the-character-of-god-and-the-truth-of-the-gospel/

---

Derm, thanks for sharing this. I have made my way through a portion of it and will continue reading, but I am struck by this paragraph from the beginning:

Quote:

---

Therefore this intellectual and theological relativism just won't do. Two mutually exclusive views on soteriology, the nature of God and the gospel message cannot both be true. It doesn't hold intellectually and it doesn't comport with the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Scriptures do not testify to inconsistent or contradictory "truths."

---

Please understand when I say this I am not trying to be polemical, but when I read this I find myself saying "yes, AMEN!" and this SCREAMS about the need for an ultimate, infallibile interpreter of scripture? With all the intellectual honesty I can muster, I don't see how it is possible to get around this. Otherwise, it truly is every man and his Bible his own Pope. Isn't this article making the case against sola scriptura? Aren't we staring at the fruits of sola scriptura when we read the divergence of understanding between Calvinists and others? Millions of honest, very smart, well-intended Christians of good faith arriving at vastly different understandings of critical matters to the life of a Christian while looking solely to the Bible as the ulitmate rule of faith?

Sorry if this derails your otherwise thought-provoking post. I am going to keep reading it to broaden my understanding.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

This is great stuff.
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-6-whats-at-stake-the-character-of-god-and-the-truth-of-the-gospel/

---

Derm, thanks for sharing this. I have made my way through a portion of it and will continue reading, but I am struck by this paragraph from the beginning:

Quote:

---

Therefore this intellectual and theological relativism just won't do. Two mutually exclusive views on soteriology, the nature of God and the gospel message cannot both be true. It doesn't hold intellectually and it doesn't comport with the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Scriptures do not testify to inconsistent or contradictory "truths."

---

Please understand when I say this I am not trying to be polemical, but when I read this I find myself saying "yes, AMEN!" and this SCREAMS about the need for an ultimate, infallibile interpreter of scripture? With all the intellectual honesty I can muster, I don't see how it is possible to get around this. Otherwise, it truly is every man and his Bible his own Pope. Isn't this article making the case against sola scriptura? Aren't we staring at the fruits of sola scriptura when we read the divergence of understanding between Calvinists and others? Millions of honest, very smart, well-intended Christians of good faith arriving at vastly different understandings of critical matters to the life of a Christian while looking solely to the Bible as the ulitmate rule of faith?

Sorry if this derails your otherwise thought-provoking post. I am going to keep reading it to broaden my understanding.

---

The whole site is very well done.

I agree.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

I agree.

---

And this is my favorite. William Lane Craig is no lightweight

https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-4-why-the-calvinist-views-of-sovereignty-and-salvation-are-certainly-false/

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

This is great stuff.
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-6-whats-at-stake-the-character-of-god-and-the-truth-of-the-gospel/

---

Derm, thanks for sharing this. I have made my way through a portion of it and will continue reading, but I am struck by this paragraph from the beginning:

Quote:

---

Therefore this intellectual and theological relativism just won't do. Two mutually exclusive views on soteriology, the nature of God and the gospel message cannot both be true. It doesn't hold intellectually and it doesn't comport with the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Scriptures do not testify to inconsistent or contradictory "truths."

---

Please understand when I say this I am not trying to be polemical, but when I read this I find myself saying "yes, AMEN!" and this SCREAMS about the need for an ultimate, infallibile interpreter of scripture? With all the intellectual honesty I can muster, I don't see how it is possible to get around this. Otherwise, it truly is every man and his Bible his own Pope. Isn't this article making the case against sola scriptura? Aren't we staring at the fruits of sola scriptura when we read the divergence of understanding between Calvinists and others? Millions of honest, very smart, well-intended Christians of good faith arriving at vastly different understandings of critical matters to the life of a Christian while looking solely to the Bible as the ulitmate rule of faith?

Sorry if this derails your otherwise thought-provoking post. I am going to keep reading it to broaden my understanding.

---

And actually the argument is not against Sola Scriptura. The argument is the Calvinist interpretation.

But I see your point

Fair. My observation is derivative of the otherwise very good argument against Calvinism. I agree with the argument. It does violence to God in the same way penal substitutionary atonement does.

Makes God into a moral monster.

dermdoc said:

---

Makes God into a moral monster.

---

Another quote from chapter 4 that I thought was noteworthy is the one where he questioned whether the God of Calvinists is actually the God of the gospel. Straight to the heart of the matter.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Makes God into a moral monster.

---

Another quote from chapter 4 that I thought was noteworthy is the one where he questioned whether the God of Calvinists is actually the God of the gospel. Straight to the heart of the matter.

---

The question becomes what is the Gospel? And then how to present it?

If Calvinists are correct the Gospel is unnecessary as everything has been pre determined before time.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

---

Sorry I am boring you.

Just searching for the truth. And defending the true character of God.

Ha! Not necessarily bored. I'm not going to go and read all the literature at this time.

And the kind of gaslighting or implications that reformed thinking leads to the only conclusion of God being a "monster."

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Ha! Not necessarily bored. I'm not going to go and read all the literature at this time.

And the kind of gaslighting or implications that reformed thinking leads to the only conclusion of God being a "monster."

---

If somebody creates something only for eternal torment that is the definition of monster to me. Guess we are different.

Calvin was reflecting his perception of God when he burned Servatus at the stake.

How can you write 1500 pages about God in the Institutes and never use the word love? Which Scripture defines God as consisting of.

And I read your links, Scriptures, and posts. It is very frustrating when all I get are brush offs.

I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.

If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.

I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.

If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.

I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through

---

That is good stuff. The early church had great thoughts. Lots more hints of universal reconciliation and less ECT hell from my readings. Much different than the Western church which is basically all Augustine.

I love that stuff.

And it is great for me to get out of my "bubble".

Oh and I read really fast.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.

If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.

I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through

---

That is good stuff. The early church had great thoughts. Lots more hints of universal reconciliation and less ECT hell from my readings. Much different than the Western church which is basically all Augustine.

I love that stuff.

And it is great for me to get out of my "bubble".

Oh and I read really fast.

---

@derm, I have been reading and thinking about the article you shared. It's very thought-provoking. Right, wrong, or otherwise, I am struck by the observation that the nature of freedom is at the very core of this subject. The question my Catholic mind is disposed to ask about the nature of freedom is "Is freedom a share or participation in the Divine Life?" I am inspired to ask this question because while reading the article I realized that only God is truly free in the ultimate sense of the word, but as with other divine attributes, we can share or partake in those divine attributes if God wills to share them with us. As those arguig against Calvinism in the article suggest, God can ordain a world where he wills that men are truly free to make choices and when men do so they are actually doing so by God's will. But that's the bare minimum.

Freedom, in the Catholic understanding, is indeed a share in God's divine life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that true freedom is found in living according to God's will and in communion with Him (CCC 1731-1733). But this freedom is not merely the ability to choose, but the capacity to choose the good, which aligns with God's divine nature. In John 8:32, Jesus says, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," indicating that true freedom is found in the truth of God. Through grace, especially received in the sacraments, we participate in God's life, which is the ultimate freedom from sin and death (Romans 6:22-23). That's why as we become more conformed to Christ in our life, we become more and more free, even if we are imprisoned for our beliefs. This is why when I look at a crucifix I see a man who was more free than any man before him or since. He was completely and totally surrendered to God's will, having completely emptied himself for us out of love for the Father and love for us. He was perfected in freedom and love as he hung there in agony.

As St. Peter tells us:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; (2 Peter 1:3-10, RSV-CE)

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.

If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.

I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through

---

That is good stuff. The early church had great thoughts. Lots more hints of universal reconciliation and less ECT hell from my readings. Much different than the Western church which is basically all Augustine.

I love that stuff.

And it is great for me to get out of my "bubble".

Oh and I read really fast.

---

@derm, I have been reading and thinking about the article you shared. It's very thought-provoking. Right, wrong, or otherwise, I am struck by the observation that the nature of freedom is at the very core of this subject. The question my Catholic mind is disposed to ask about the nature of freedom is "Is freedom a share or participation in the Divine Life?" I am inspired to ask this question because while reading the article I realized that only God is truly free in the ultimate sense of the word, but as with other divine attributes, we can share or partake in those divine attributes if God wills to share them with us. As those arguig against Calvinism in the article suggest, God can ordain a world where he wills that men are truly free to make choices and when men do so they are actually doing so by God's will. But that's the bare minimum.

Freedom, in the Catholic understanding, is indeed a share in God's divine life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that true freedom is found in living according to God's will and in communion with Him (CCC 1731-1733). But this freedom is not merely the ability to choose, but the capacity to choose the good, which aligns with God's divine nature. In John 8:32, Jesus says, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," indicating that true freedom is found in the truth of God. Through grace, especially received in the sacraments, we participate in God's life, which is the ultimate freedom from sin and death (Romans 6:22-23). As St. Peter tells us

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; (2 Peter 1:3-10, RSV-CE)

---

I like that. Thanks. Salvation is now and in the past and tomorrow. It is not just a means of going to "heaven".
It is being born again and changed. Now.
Compare New Testament evangelism with what is Western evangelism today and in the past. Night and day difference.

I do not know what happened, but it did.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.

If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.

I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through

---

That is good stuff. The early church had great thoughts. Lots more hints of universal reconciliation and less ECT hell from my readings. Much different than the Western church which is basically all Augustine.

I love that stuff.

And it is great for me to get out of my "bubble".

Oh and I read really fast.

---

@derm, I have been reading and thinking about the article you shared. It's very thought-provoking. Right, wrong, or otherwise, I am struck by the observation that the nature of freedom is at the very core of this subject. The question my Catholic mind is disposed to ask about the nature of freedom is "Is freedom a share or participation in the Divine Life?" I am inspired to ask this question because while reading the article I realized that only God is truly free in the ultimate sense of the word, but as with other divine attributes, we can share or partake in those divine attributes if God wills to share them with us. As those arguig against Calvinism in the article suggest, God can ordain a world where he wills that men are truly free to make choices and when men do so they are actually doing so by God's will. But that's the bare minimum.

Freedom, in the Catholic understanding, is indeed a share in God's divine life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that true freedom is found in living according to God's will and in communion with Him (CCC 1731-1733). But this freedom is not merely the ability to choose, but the capacity to choose the good, which aligns with God's divine nature. In John 8:32, Jesus says, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," indicating that true freedom is found in the truth of God. Through grace, especially received in the sacraments, we participate in God's life, which is the ultimate freedom from sin and death (Romans 6:22-23). As St. Peter tells us

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; (2 Peter 1:3-10, RSV-CE)

---

I like that. Thanks. Salvation is now and in the past and tomorrow. It is not just a means of going to "heaven".
It is being born again and changed. Now.
Compare New Testament evangelism with what is Western evangelism today and in the past. Night and day difference.

I do not know what happened, but it did.

---

Yes sir.

Theosis is the forgotten thing. Not so much in the east, but in the west we lost touch with it even if we never really stopped believing it. We stopped actively teaching it. But it is still there for those who seek it.

It really is exciting and fulfilling.

dermdoc said:

---

It really is exciting and fulfilling.

---

Derm, I commend this article on Maximus the Confessor to you for your enjoyment and possibly some edification.

https://fatherirenaeuswilliams.com/2024/01/25/st-maximus-the-confessor-christology-and-the-salvific-model-of-theosis/

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It really is exciting and fulfilling.

---

Derm, I commend this article on Maximus the Confessor to you for your enjoyment and possibly some edification.

https://fatherirenaeuswilliams.com/2024/01/25/st-maximus-the-confessor-christology-and-the-salvific-model-of-theosis/

---

Great read. Fits my present idea of salvation.

https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-4-why-the-calvinist-views-of-sovereignty-and-salvation-are-certainly-false/

Just re read this and it is so good.

dermdoc said:

---

https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-4-why-the-calvinist-views-of-sovereignty-and-salvation-are-certainly-false/

Just re read this and it is so good.

---

Thanks. I could be mistaken, but is it true that WLC agrees with monothelitism? If so, the statement below might explain why. If true I don't think it in any way undermines his critique of Calvinism.

Quote:

---

Any interpretation of Scripture that claims to be valid has to be able to coherently account for all the biblical data, in this case, divine sovereignty on the one hand and contingency, human freedom and responsibility on the other. A valid interpretation of each must provide coherence between them. Incoherence declared a mystery so as to maintain one's interpretation is not an option.

---

One of his arguments is that Calvinism makes God the author of sin. Powerful stuff.

dermdoc said:

---

One of his arguments is that Calvinism makes God the author of sin. Powerful stuff.

---

That is fine to say, but the fact of the matter is that God being the author of sin is not part of reformed theology and is completely rejected.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

One of his arguments is that Calvinism makes God the author of sin. Powerful stuff.

---

That is fine to say, but the fact of the matter is that God being the author of sin is not part of reformed theology and is completely rejected.

---

Might want to read his argument. It is pretty compelling if you
ascribe to total determinism which is the logical end of Reformed theology.

William Lane Craig calls it "universal divine causal determinism".

If you can point me to a certain section I will try to do so.

I am not disputing that the argument isn't real, but just because someone argues or makes a case doesn't necessarily mean anything. If that is the outcome of the argument, it is 100% rejected. God is not the author of sin.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you can point me to a certain section I will try to do so.

I am not disputing that the argument isn't real, but just because someone argues or makes a case doesn't necessarily mean anything. If that is the outcome of the argument, it is 100% rejected. God is not the author of sin.

---

It is his third point in the attached link. The whole link is really not that long if you have the time.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you can point me to a certain section I will try to do so.

I am not disputing that the argument isn't real, but just because someone argues or makes a case doesn't necessarily mean anything. If that is the outcome of the argument, it is 100% rejected. God is not the author of sin.

---

And it probably depends on what you consider evil or a sin.

Craig believes, as I do, that if God creates a human being pre ordained to eternal torment, that makes God the author of sin.

You and the Reformed obviously do not agree. And I frankly do not understand the logic of that.

From the article:

Quote:

---

By the same token, all human responsibility for sin is removed on this view because our choices are not really up to us. God causes us to make them. So we can't be responsible for our choices because nothing that we think or do is up to us.

---

Said another way, "You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?"

The article makes a big deal of Calvinists "fleeing to incomprehensibility" and I see no issue with this. Do we not flee to incomprehensibility when it comes to things like the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union? Why is this not allowed when it comes to God's sovereignty and man's responsibility?