Thank you for your clarification of some things. But regarding Hebrew 6:4-6 for example; why can't they be forgiven and repent? If they do what is said there, leave God despite knowledge of who he is and then regret it and asks for forgiveness, why then isn't forgiveness granted to them?

Are you a christian or a buddhist or something else? I don't think that the buddhist concept of samsara is the same as the christian idea of eternal hell.

Yes, calvinism is quite popular among many. How that is possible is beyond my understanding.

But regarding Hebrew 6:4-6 for example; why can't they be forgiven and repent? — Beebert

They cannot repent because what could cause them to repent? If in full knowledge of God they turn against Him, then what can cause them to repent? They already know all the facts, they've tasted of the fruits of heaven, and they still turned against God. What can possibly cause them to repent now? :s

The fact that they regret their actions and want to be with God?

The fact that they regret their actions and want to be with God? — Beebert

What would cause them to regret their actions? They already know everything there is to know. So there isn't anymore knowledge that they can have - so in the absence of additional knowledge, what can cause them to regret their actions?

I don't know. God's grace? You said man's will is free, so obviously, if they still have their memory intact and remember that they have rejected God, they must be able to realize that perhaps it was wrong. If not else, because of the idea of eternal hell. Not many would like to end up in such a place or state. Therefore, I can not accept the idea that "it is impossible because the person will not change, he can not change because he knows everything". The only thing that would make it impossible for them to change is if God refuses to forgive them. Does he?

Speaking of that, here is another passage in the bible that I have a hard time with, and which seems to suggest just that God refuses to forgive or heal some people: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
John 12:40

I don't know. God's grace? — Beebert

What does God's grace have to do with their will? God has already fully revealed Himself to them, and they have rejected Him.

You said man's will is free, so obviously, if they still have their memory intact and remember that they have rejected God, they must be able to realize that perhaps it was wrong. — Beebert

Yes, they could realise that perhaps it was wrong if there was any new & relevant knowledge that they could gain access to. But there isn't.

If not else, because of the idea of eternal hell. Not many would like to end up in such a place or state — Beebert

That's false. Many people would like to end up there.

The only thing that would make it impossible for them to change is if God refuses to forgive them. Does he? — Beebert

No.

I don't know if you saw this, but I edited my earlier post and added the following:

Speaking of that, here is another passage in the bible that I have a hard time with, and which seems to suggest just that God refuses to forgive or heal some people: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
John 12:40

What about that passage? And there are many similar to it in scripture.

I don't know if you saw this, but I edited my earlier post and added the following:

Speaking of that, here is another passage in the bible that I have a hard time with, and which seems to suggest just that God refuses to forgive or heal some people: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
John 12:40 — Beebert

God "hardens their hearts" by not breaking their free will. God could force them to believe in Him and thus be saved, but then He would break their freedom of will, and that's not what God is going to do. Thus he "hardens the hearts and blinds the eyes" of unbelievers by allowing them to persist in their sin.

Really those passages aren't so hard to deal with, if you just had access to Apostolic Tradition under the guidance of the Church. The Bible was never meant to be read alone or with very little study or guidance.

It's an historical issue as much as a philosophical one, but understanding it takes a lot of study.

And it's had an enormous impact on conservative Christianity — Wayfarer

An oxymoron. Calvinism is in fact a quite radical form of Christianity, for it breaks, and conserves little, from Christianity as it existed for 1500 years. It came as a form of protest, like all forms of Protestantism, of what Christianity hitherto was and meant.

There's a deep historical back-story to how it got this way. That is explained in Michael Allen Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity — Wayfarer

Does he argue that Calvinism accepts nominalism?

God could force them to believe in Him and thus be saved — Agustino

I think that would violate his nature, so I don't think he could do this.

A most clever and ironic juxtaposition of the word tulip with the unsavory doctrines of Calvinism. (Y)

Calvinism is in fact a quite radical form of Christianity, for it breaks, and conserves little, from Christianity as it existed for 1500 years. — Thorongil

'radical' means 'of the root'. So, yes, I suppose from the perspective of Catholicism, Calvin was radical, but in the context of US culture, Reformed Theology is most often associated with political conservatism.

That 'TULIP' acronym is not BC's invention, it is part of Reformed apologetics.

The reason I referred to the Gillespie book, is that it analyses the significance of nominalism in the overthrow of scholastic metaphysics, and the many implications of that. The crucial point was that the nominalist vision of God was such that God was not even constrained by logic - He could completely subvert logic if he so choose. God is utterly omnipotent, omniscient, and completely unknowable.
Whereas, in the Scholastic philosophy, God was in some sense rational, even if also beyond rationality. (I might not be putting that well, but it's an argument that Gillespie takes an entire book to develop and it is a very complex issue.)

Another book I have partially completed about a similar topic is Brad S Gregory's 'The Unintended Reformation' http://a.co/i2t4t3d . Gregory points out that one profound consequence of Luther's 'strict adherence to the Bible' was a massive splintering of sects and sub-sects, based on exactly that 'strict adherence' - because different people interpreted the 'strict meaning' in such a diversity of ways.

I think that would violate his nature, so I don't think he could do this. — Thorongil

Why? Nothing is impossible for God - theoretically. Practically God would not break his creature's free will - but He could do it theoretically.

The problem with the calvinistic poison, as far as I can see, I that once you start to think seriously about traditional christian doctrines about God, such as his omnipotence and omniscience, along with biblical concepts such as foreknowledge, predestination and election, it is hard to not agree with a calvinist it seems to me. I mean, it seems like the combination of these doctrines leads to calvinism. God is all-powerful and knows everything. In other words, what happens, he also wills. I dont see how I am supposed to get my head around this...

Why? Nothing is impossible for God - theoretically. Practically God would not break his creature's free will - but He could do it theoretically. — Agustino

Quite the voluntarist conception of God you have there. Aquinas would not approve.

I don't think God can create a square circles, perform evil, or make 2+2=5, among other impossible things. Perhaps you should tell me what work the word "theoretically" is supposed to be doing, though.

Quite the voluntarist conception of God you have there. Aquinas would not approve.

I don't think God can create a square circles, perform evil, or make 2+2=5, among other impossible things. Perhaps you should tell me what work the word "theoretically" is supposed to be doing, though. — Thorongil

Breaking the free will of his creatures is not logically impossible (like making 2+2=5 is, or creating a stone so heavy that he cannot lift, etc.). And I know Aquinas would not approve, but I hold he's wrong on that ;) :P

Breaking the free will of his creatures is not logically impossible — Agustino

Why not?

Why not? — Thorongil

Why would it be? :s I see no necessary contradiction in God breaking the will of human beings. The only reason He does not break it, is because He doesn't want to.

I would say it's because he can't. Violating the will of his creatures would be wrong, and God cannot commit wrongdoing.

I would say it's because he can't. Violating the will of his creatures would be wrong, and God cannot commit wrongdoing. — Thorongil

Why is it wrong when God has created them from nothing and wields complete power over them, not having had to create them in the first place? Does God owe something to His creatures or what? :s

That's the Orthodox distinction for example between created and Uncreated. You cannot judge the Uncreated by the same standard you judge the Created. Aquinas doesn't see this very well because his distinction is between natural and super-natural - which doesn't go deep enough.

That doesn't refute my claim. God can create someone and yet it still be wrong for him to violate that person's will. "I created you, therefore, I can commit wrongdoing against you" sounds like Descartes's evil demon, not God.

That doesn't refute my claim. God can create someone and yet it still be wrong for him to violate that person's will. "I created you, therefore, I can commit wrongdoing against you" sounds like Descartes's evil demon, not God. — Thorongil

That's the Orthodox distinction for example between created and Uncreated. You cannot judge the Uncreated by the same standard you judge the Created. Aquinas doesn't see this very well because his distinction is between natural and super-natural - which doesn't go deep enough. — Agustino

No it doesn't sound like Descartes evil demon. But the standard of what's right and wrong changes. You keep talking about God committing wrong - that would not be wrong.

If God can break human freedom, then it seems to me that is what he does all the time. This sounds unreasonable, but based on the former, I make the conclusion that he can't break är freedom. I Think Berdyaev was correct when he said God has no power over human freedom. BTW, if a man came to you and said "In the world I see, 2+2 never equals 4", what would you answer? The world that he experiences is still his representation, how then is it possible to say "You are wrong"?

So God violating someone's will becomes right by virtue of God simply doing so, even though it would otherwise be wrong? That produces a rather nasty conception of God I would refuse to believe in. You appear to accept the horn of Euthyphro's dilemma that says something is right because God commands it, as opposed to the horn I would argue for, which is that God commands things because they are right. I believe there is an objective standard of morality. If God exists and he is both immutable and goodness itself, then God is the objective standard of morality and he cannot change that which is good.

In order for you to maintain your position, you would have to deny that God is immutable or that God is goodness itself, either of which would be to reject classical theism, which obviously includes Aquinas. It seems to me, if you do so, that Scotus of Ockham ought to be your favorite philosopher.

So God violating someone's will becomes right, even though it would otherwise be wrong? That produces a rather nasty conception of God I would refuse to believe in. — Thorongil

Nope. Creator has different rights than creatures. It would be wrong for a creature to deprive you of your free will, not for God. If it wasn't for God, you wouldn't have had free will to begin with, so what harm is being done if He takes what He gave you in the first place?

You appear to accept the horn of Euthyphro's dilemma that says something is right is because God commands it — Thorongil

Nope.

is that God commands things because they are right. — Thorongil

I believe this.

I believe there is an objective standard of morality. — Thorongil

Same.

If God exists and he is both immutable and goodness itself, then God is the objective standard of morality and he cannot change that which is good. — Thorongil

Sure.

In order for you to maintain your position, you would have to deny that God is immutable or that God is goodness itself — Thorongil

Nope.

Also please note that God depriving you of free will doesn't mean the same thing as me depriving you of free will. When I deprive you of free will, I don't actually eliminate your free will, but rather physically force you to do what you do not want to do - which is harmful and painful. When God deprives you of free will he takes away your free will entirely.