Valid Scenarios for Calvinism and Arminianism

The Calvinist future scenario only need the following "debatable points" to be accepted.

#1. The are parents in heaven.
#2. Some parents will not ALSO see their children saved.
#3. Heaven is an even MORE caring and loving environment than sin-polluted earth for Parents and Children.
#4. Calvinism is true.
#5. Calvinist saved parents will have a free and open relationship with God in Heaven where they are "able" to share any concerns and their own love for their family with God.

Since so many Calvinists are choking on the premise for the "Calvinist Future scenario" -- while fleeing from the "details" that can not be denied -- maybe they can comment "on THIS thread".

As I read it, God would be lying to Job at the end if he even tried to tell him that He tried all He could but He just can't control evil.

#1. God never says "I can't turn you into a robot no matter how hard I try. I just don't seem to have THE POWER" - in ANY scenario presented so far.

Making that idea up - is not a compelling form of debate.

#2. God makes a sovereign statement in Job 1 and 2. There "Should be NO counter argument" allowed once God has spoken. AND YET - in true Arminian fashion -- dissenting opinion is allowed.

Then instead of saying "well no matter what I allow you to say (or cause you to say) - My statement stands because I AM God and you are not" the debate CONTINUES in TRUE ARMINIAN style with a "TEST" to SEE who is right.

#3. There is no way in the world for the principles of Calvinism to insist that there be a TEST to SEE IF God is right -- where NON-GOD beings are judging the results??? AS IF they had FREE WILL and can draw either positive OR negative conclusions based on argument, compelling data, experiment -- TESTING God to see IF HE is right!

THIS scenario is THE ULTIMATE Arminian scenario! It shows ARGUMENT and DEBATE with DATA and compelling DATA used to determine who is right. Objective evaluation of GOD - in contest with evil!

Thanks for bringing it up.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is God going to tell Job at the end "Well I WILLED SATAN to challenge Me and then I willed Him to torment you -- NOT to PROVE Myself to anyone but to ENJOY MY absolute control thoroughly!"

 

Yes tons of free will in the entire scenario. In fact the whole thing is pointless without it.

Well lets think about that.

In the Armininan system free will beings "decide" and "make choices" based on "compelling data and argument".

In The Calvinist Model "God ALONE is Sovereign". God ALONE decides what will happen and what will not happen. God is NOT bound by the wishes, thoughts and feelings of others in Calvinism.

This could not be any more obvious in terms of which model expecte "debate with God" that is settled NOT by sovereign decree BUT settled via objective "experiment" and "evidence" (dangerously close to "JUDGING GOD" were it not actually in the Bible)

May I suggest then that you have not been contemplating the "differences" between the two views for long.

Job is clearly a "debate" between God and Satan where God's answer to Satan is seen in Chapters 1 and 2 and Satan's challenge to God -- before the entire council is stated explicitly.

The debate is "settled" only in the "details" of Job's suffering and steadfast faith.

The RECORD OF his ACTIONS serves to settle the matter - rather than "a sovereign decree".

How "Arminian".

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. The book of Job is not a debate between God and Job. It is a debate between God and Satan where God is the one saying JOB IS RIGHT!

To miss that "inconvenient detail" and cast the entire book as a debate between God and Job is not miss the point entirely.

(Though I admit that in doing so - it can be made more tolerable for Calvinism).

#2. God's statement to Job is not "you deserve to have your children slaughtered because I am stronger than you" - as you seem to argue. HOWEVER - you are making a good point - in that God's word to Job SHOULD BE God's EXPECTED word to Satan in Job 1 and 2 if it were true that Calvinism is fact rather than fiction.

The fact that you claim not to "be able to that" in Job 1 and 2 -- but to "suddenly see it as Calvinisms way CLEARLY at the end of Job" does not reflect well on your objectivity here.

My argument is that you are missing God's statement to Job at the end. My argument is that IN MISSING it the way you do (to get the most perfect Calvinist invention possible from it) you "expose" the flaw in your argument for Job 1 and 2. You expose the fact that Calvinism DOES NOT anticipate debate and "objetive experiment" as the way to solve a challenge - but rather "I am God -- you are not" to BE Calvinism's expected "solution" to the innexplicable fact that God wills a challenge to Himself in the form of Satan.


As for the "Detail" of how you are not only missing the START of Job but also the END of the story as well --

Job argues that he wishes for a "debate" with God where HE can state his case before God. God responds to Job telling Job about the wisdom of God so that Job thinks twice about "instructing God" BUT THEN God goes on to say "JOB has spoken what IS RIGHT of ME".

This is far from "Job shut up because I am God and you are not".

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Deny free will"?? - Calvinism? Precisely!!

Why wouldn't I think that?

Been there.

Done that.

We saw it "again" in your own words right here.

(Inconvenient 'details' again).

here they are "Again" as we see your answer to MY statement that the "expected solution" in Calvinims is NOT OPEN objective experiment and DEBATE - but it is soveriegn COMMAND that does not allow/will a challenge.

Brandon said --
However, when God does answer Job in chapters 38-42 how different is it from your words: "My statement stands because I am God and you are not." That about sums up God's answer to Job from what I read.


You show by your own confession what the EXPECTED Calvinist "solution" is and you even claim to find it in the book.

God is not human.

Satan is not human.

No humans are mentioned in the council of Job 1 and 2.

The is NOT a debate between humans - it is a debate with a council as the forum. An open debate between God and Satan where "decisions" and "Conclusions" are made based on objective evidence, data, experiment, the testing of Job, i.e. the TESTING of God's OWN statement about Job.

A more Arminian scenario could not be imagined.

Lets view the "inconvenient details" that are actually IN the book and SEE the debate that you pretend not to see.

The contest is clear. The statement God makes is offered TO SATAN for him to respond -- in the form of a question -- an implied challenge.

Satan's response is not "WELL there is certainly no contest here -- you are God and I AM NOT so NEXT topic" -- as the Calvinist might expect.

Let us review "again" the "inconvenient DETAILS" --

#1. What is God's QUESTION TO Satan?

#2. What is Satan's CHALLENG TO God?

Please "redefine contest" so that Calvinism comes out ok saying "no contest is taking place between God and Satan" in the book of Job.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Context always comes first. The context is a debate between God and Satan. Even other Calvinists will admit this.

#2. God's statement at the END of the book is that JOB WAS right!

God is in debate with Satan and His point is PROVEN in the life of Job who REMAINS faithful during the entire experiment.

It is the Arminian system of DEBATE and CHOICE where compelling ARGUMENT and DATA - is the basis of CHOOSING RIGHT - NOT simply the sovereign command not to question God.

Were that the "ideal solution" it should have been used in Job 1 and shown the glory of God in sparing Job pain because after all - this is a CALVINIST model where God's Soevereign COMMAND ALONE is all that is needed as a solution THUS sparing everyone much pain.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I object.

Lucifer chose sin "AGAINST his SINLESS nature".

Adam CHOSE sin "AGAINST his SINLESS nature"

Saul chose OBEDIENCE and became Paul "AGAINST his sinFUL nature".

The definition of "free will" has NEVER been "confined to what your nature dictates".

Period.

Having said that - your complaint is little other than a smoke screen for the point "remains" that the "debate format" with the "proof by objective experiment" is NOT what Calvinism anticipates but is EXACTLY what the ARminian model of a "free will universe" dictates.

How much more "obvious" can this be??

Your own confession that "I am God and you are not" is "THE" solution that fits Calvinism - remains and is clearly the point of Calvinism.

Therefore -the point remains, thought it is noted that you don't like it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your argument is the horrible position that "Satan was right and God was wrong" in the experiment as YOU argue that JUST as Satan predicted, once the restraints were removed and adversity came JOB FELL.

Your defense of Calvinism has gone to the predictable extreme.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That would be option "C".

That would clearly be Satan's claim in Chapters 1 and 2.

You seem to be good at ignore the "pesky details" that set the context for the story in Job.

How do you do that?

I have not been able to master it.

By conveniently ignoring the entire dispute the forms the context for the book - you are free to doubt God as HE said that Job "spoke what is right OF ME".

AND you place yourself in the undesirable position of arguing Satan's point in chapter 1 and 2.


THEN you "blame me" for your troubles.

How DO you do that??

I have not been able to accomplish such a masterful bias in my own posts.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

It is not "my fault" that you chose the most Arminian scenario in all of scripture (Job) for your "test case".

Blaming ME because Satan is the one that argues that Job will sin if the experiment is done -- does not help your case.

The text "is there" even though you don't like how it frames your own argument.

How that is "my fault" is totally amazing to me.

(Or did I write the book of Job?).

May I suggest that a more exegetically sound approach to scripture instead of a "Calvinism-at-all-costs" approach would have served you better in this review of the DEBATE between God and Satan in the book of Job.

The argument (at least on MY side) is that the objective "evidence" in the life of Job PROVED God's claims true and Satan's claims false - in TRUE Arminian style where OBJECTIVE DATA forms compelling ARGUMENT to "motivate" free will conclusions.

A more perfect Arminian scenario could not be imagined.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having studied Brandon's perfect "arminian scenario" from Job 1 to Job 42... lets take a closer look at "The perfect Calvinist" scenario.

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

<You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?>

God who (arbitrarily to human eyes) selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

[ May 10, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Here is a quote showing the fact that from the human POV there is no difference between the lost and the elect. (i.e. arbitrary selection) accepted by Calvinists today.

Notice that it also affirms the “expected future condition” of parents in heaven although their child is “lost”. (Parent selected, Child not selected)

And here we see confirmed the "all deserve hell but is it not great that some are selected to be elect point of Calvinism – as it turns from the sorrowful case of the lost and just sees how they “deserve what they get”.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069

Calvinist overjoyed at this “inexplicable selection of one and not the other” idea..

The scenario is "confirmed".

In Christ,

Bob

 

post moved