Clicking around the blogosphere this Sunday morning I stumbled upon an interesting post. And by "interesting", I mean eyebrow-raising. But then again, since this blog(Boomslang's Lair) is pretty much dedicated to putting theism and particularly Christian theism under the microscope, perhaps my readers, both vocal and silent, already know that when I say that something is "interesting" that I'm more or less saying it's sketchy.
But in any case, the post to which I refer today is centered around a quote by a man named James Montgomery Boice. Boice was a Reformed theologian. So, yeah, we're talking Calvinism again. I've said it before and I have no problem saying it again, but as far as Christianity goes, it is the theology of John Calvin that I find to be the most repugnant, and by extension, it is Calvinism that I find to be the most deserving of scorn.
So, the author/owner of the blog on which this quote appeared was focusing on how one gets "saved", and in fact, said author/owner must be fixated on the topic to some degree since the name of the blog itself is "Saved by Grace". Not the most original name, but either way, it is pretty clear that the blog's author/owner believes that one can only be saved by "Grace"(in other words, not by "works" or anything else), hence the Latin term, Sola Gratia (.i.e.."Only Grace")in the above graphic, which also appears on the post in question.
Now for the quote, itself.....
"The words sola gratia mean that human beings have no claim upon God. That is, God owes us nothing except just punishment for our many and very willful sins. Therefore, if he does save sinners, which he does in the case of some but not all, it is only because it pleases him to do it. Indeed, apart from this grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that flows from it, no one would be saved, since in our lost condition, human beings are not capable of winning, seeking out, or even cooperating with God’s grace. By insisting on ‘grace alone’ the Reformers were denying that human methods, techniques, or strategies in themselves could ever bring anyone to faith. It is grace alone expressed through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ, releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from death to spiritual life." ~ James Montgomery Boice
Okay, line by line, let's have a look at this and try to figure out why people put their faith into such things.
"human beings have no claim upon God"
Really? Okay, isn't it strange then that theists of opposing religions claim to know that their (version of) God is the true God, and all other versions are counterfeit and their adherents, mistaken? And more damaging to the claim that humans have no claim upon God, even within a given religion, take Christianity and its
"God owes us nothing except just punishment for our many and very willful sins."
If God only owes us "just punishment" for our "sins", isn't it curious how this God turns right around and makes an exception for some people? In other words, when we think of the word "just" or "justice", I don't know about you, but I think of someone getting precisely the punishment they deserve. That's what "justice" actually means. But yet, while in one breath we are being told that their god is "just", in the next breath we're being told that their god is also "merciful". So, which is it? The two things exclude each other. Any Reformists out there who want to take a stab at it?
"Therefore, if he does save sinners, which he does in the case of some but not all, it is only because it pleases him to do it."
So, by extension, I guess it also "pleases him" to not save those whom he arbitrarily decides to not "save", those whom we are told get incinerated in hellfire as a consequence of God just, oh, deciding to not save them . Nice "God" you've got there, Calvinists. 'Good thing there's not one scrap of evidence that the doctrine known as "Calvinism" is true.
"Indeed, apart from this grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that flows from it, no one would be saved, since in our lost condition, human beings are not capable of winning, seeking out, or even cooperating with God’s grace."
Or for that matter, everyone could be saved if God so chose to do it. But alas, being the "good" parent that God is, God has zero qualms saving some of his children, while letting others burn. And BTW, what's with this whole "regenerating" rigmarole? You mean God subcontracts this "Holy Spirit" thingy to regenerate people of his choosing?...people that might not otherwise choose him of their own volition? God makes it so that some people literally cannot resist him?? So much for that "free will" junk, I guess.
"By insisting on ‘grace alone’ the Reformers were denying that human methods, techniques, or strategies in themselves could ever bring anyone to faith."
Noting that in Calvinism, even if someone is brought to "faith", this is still no guarantee that John Calvin's god has elected them. Remember, John Calvin's god could be toying with his creation for no other reason than that it pleases him. But as far as what "the Reformers" were insisting, human beings have been insisting stuff since time immemorial. People can insist things until kingdom come(no pun). But here's the rub: The insistence, itself, doesn't make the stuff they are insisting true.
So, again, "the Reformers" were pretending to know things that they couldn't possibly know, and via indoctrination, they passed along this operating under the pretense meme onto today's Reformists. Welp, the thing is, today we have more information and better ways for acquiring it. In other words, today we can know that the Reformists of the past had mistaken ideas about how the world works. We can know (if we choose to know) that what Calvinism proposes is not in the realm of possibility for the same, exact reasons we can know that "square circles" and "married bachelors" are not in the realm of possibility. Or...we can choose to not know it.
6 comments:
Update:
Yay! My first response, albeit, not on my own blog(I know, I know, shocker, right?)
Anyway, lyn writes....
"boom
You are right, your comment will not be posted here. You have no desire to uphold the whole counsel of God, and I have no desire to let anyone dare attempt to visit your blog. Your trash will never be promoted here."
Everyone say "hi" to lyn!
Okay, lyn, the "counsel of God"? Yeah, that. Well, that is the very thing in question. You are doing what's known as begging the question(fallacy). That is, you've assumed your premise is true, and then you attempt to use it to support itself. 'See the problem?
As for my views being promoted on your website, if it's that apparent that my views are "trash", then it seems to me that the astute among your readership would recognize this, too. As it stands, it sort of sounds like you're selling your readership a little short, like you're tryin' to be the "mom", censoring what her children can watch and not watch. And besides, I thought "the Truth" had nothing to hide(???)
Two responses!
Darrel(lyn's pinch hitter? Other half? Both?) writes.....
"Boom, do you seriously think that you would be welcomed here to mock and curse and belittle the God that created you and that anyone here is stupid enough to allow you to speak from your pedestal of arrogance? You will never understand anything about God unless and until He decides to reveal Himself to you. Lyn was kind to you, I won't be, so don't come back. Your nausea will never see the light of day here."
Everyone say "hi" to Darrel!
Okay, "mock and curse and belittle the God tha[SNIP]"
Darrel, Darrel, Darrel. There's a bit of a mix-up, Big Daddy. See, I'm not mocking any "God", because the existence of such a thing has never been objectively confirmed. So, no, if I'm mocking anything at all, it's an idea, and in your case, it's the idea that you know that there is a god, and even more mock-worthy, that you claim to know its intentions and desires. If calling people out for claiming to know things about me (and others) that they could not possibly know..e.g...what I will "never understand", yadda, yadda, makes me "arrogant", then fine, I will happily and "arrogantly" continue to call out people who believe that the "Creator of the Universe" has given to them a license to judge others and to second-guess their personal experiences. Let me put it bluntly: When they STFU, I and others will do the same.
Since the dawn of ti/... ... religion ... they have set themselves up to be the arbiters and gatekeepers of "knowledge". They choose the narrative they want to promote and guard it fiercly and keep their "flock" from straying outside of their sphere of influence - if you think of the M. Night Shamalan movie "The Village", you know precisely of the picture I'm trying to paint and the echo chamber they NEED to create to "protect" their "vision" and "knowledge" from any challenge because they KNOW it can't stand scrutiny - it's at its fundamental base, dishonest.
I concur with all that you've pointed out, Bobby. And while I haven't seen the movie that you mention, it's easy to envision that sort of scenario. When any group tries to shield its members from the outside world, that is a telltale sign that you're dealing with a cult. And of course, yes... you, me, and anyone else who's ever tangled with evangelicals who blog know that their beliefs cannot withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. This would explain, perfectly, why the commenting policy on the blog in question only allows challenges if they are done so "biblically". Otherwise, your comment will not see the light of day. But of course, that doesn't stop them from responding to the comments they don't allow. lol It's as comical as is it cowardly.
Although the movie I referenced, "The Village", generally got panned by critics. It was really quite a stunning exercise and illumination of the EXACT situation we're discussing here. I found it entertaining - and a little spooky.
In any regard - their behavior over there (I visited the blog but couldn't find the precise thread ... the formatting hurt my eyes too much to stay long) is actually a bit scary in that they don't seem to process their religion in parallel (like the vast majority of believers/sects) to avoid the cognitive dissonance with reality ... but rather reject and avoid real reality altogether at all costs. They've become conditioned to simply "turn off" any input that contradicts their position and reject anything that slips through the cracks - if you want a case study in how ISIS comes to be - you're looking right at it's conception where only the slightest provocation could potentially turn these zealots into terrorist martyrs for their god - yikes!
"They've become conditioned to simply 'turn off' any input that contradicts their position and reject anything that slips through the cracks"
ClinG, cLing, cLiNg, we've got a winner!
"Turn off"....yes, precisely. And let's be honest, with the advent of the World Wide Web, that sort of behavior and conditioning is the only...read ONLY way that the Calvinist meme(and other religious memes) will survive. They got to block, censor, and generally write-off anything and everything that disagrees with their views, as "trash", etc.
"if you want a case study in how ISIS comes to be - you're looking right at it's conception where only the slightest provocation could potentially turn these zealots into terrorist martyrs for their god"
Bingo. Two for two! And this is precisely why I come down hard on it. So, for the times that onlookers might think to themselves(and I'm sure it happens), "Gee, boom', can't you just ignore them and their blogs?" The answer is yes. Yes, I could ignore them, but that would be like doctors ignoring rabies.
That being said, I fully concede that there are many level-headed theists out there, people with whom I can disagree, but yet, not call each other names and resort to personal attacks. Unfortunately, though, these people give the hardcore Evangelical fundamentalists..e.g..those over on "Saved by Grace", a leg to stand on.
Post a Comment