1:25:35 i’ve been said that Calvinism is somewhat ironically the easiest theology/epistemology to naturally or seamlessly arrive at the conclusion or at least the hope of apokatástasis due to its supremacy of HaShem’s Sovereignty. just comes down to “all are the elect” (1:28:57) or “the elect are the first fruits before all others enter in as well” *(1:57:46)
with the “how do you know if you’re among the elect?” i would say my wickedness and stumbling and seemingly ever-present Flesh makes me doubt this, and “I never knew you” terrified me for a long time and worries me at times still, but-to answer the question-the Holy Spirit comforts me and guides me back and deeper in to the shalom of Christ. i can’t know for certain by my understanding that i am among the elect, but by Grace and through relationship i am told and it is instilled within my spirit that He knows me and is at work within me and calls me His own, and i put my hope in this relationship and my faith in Him.
1:29:25 I have the intuition that Pelagius was probably-himself-not pelagian. We don’t have his writings. Just what his intellectual opponents said. To be Pelagian is to affirm the autonomous, isolated individual (who doesn’t exist).
This was a very good conversation. I appreciate that at some point a distinction was made between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Most of what (non-Calvinist) people refer to when they discuss Calvinism is really hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism contains all the nuance between PVK and John MacArthur. Here were some parts I had thoughts on, the time stamps are only approximate 1:15:00 Just based on the chronology of events in Genesis 2 and 3, Adam did receive from God a concept of “good” and “not good”, and “not good” was being alone, not suffering. Suffering is something God takes on Himself, and our willingness to suffer for the sake of others is a way to experience God’s presence. Therefore Adam was wrong to disobey, because he did not trust God, who in time made “good” what was “not good”. I do think that eventually God would have instructed them to eat of the tree; perhaps Adam’s realization that being alone was “not good” motivated him to eat when Eve did, fearing separation from her. Because God is infinite, His knowledge of good and evil is complete, while ours is always incomplete. Even if the fruit gave humans access to complete knowledge of good and evil, our finite lifespans mean that we will never uncover all the knowledge of good and evil in our own understanding, but that over time and through interaction with others, our understanding becomes more complete. So, when Jesus came “in the fullness of time”, the current understanding of good and evil would lead to the events on the cross, and the implications of those events are made more and more clear over time. That is why I believe that the reformation was a good thing that uncovered greater truths about God, the nature of good and evil, personal responsibility and the nature of man. I do not think it’s the ultimate understanding, but it is a good and functional starting point. (I do consider myself to be pretty “calvinish” btw, definitely not a free-willer.) 2:12:00 In regard to the assurance of salvation/election, I do not think it is a correct focus, and especially for the believer. It was important during and following the reformation because the catholic teachings about salvation were wrong, (although I don’t think sincere Catholics with bad theological understandings are doomed.) Rather, we should assume those who claim to be Christians are elect, including ourselves, but we should be concerned with our responsibility to God with what we do. The parable of the talents hints at a possibility that the one who buried the treasure could have deposited it at the bank. I like to think of those people as the “pew warmers”, but for the servants who were praised, their motivation was not fear of punishment from the master, but a desire to please him, or a fear of disappointing him. In this regard, the ones who have to most to worry about are those who believe they will be saved due to technicalities, in any tradition, because a Father will expect His children to understand the spirit of His commands, not just the technical implications. The wheat and the tares are indistinguishable until the time of the harvest, and they are mixed together everywhere. 2:59:00 The parts about the Holy Spirit in interpreting is very good. It’s uncomfortable for people, but sometimes God uses “bad interpretation” for good purposes all the time, including the NT authors use of the OT. It’s tempting to rely on a historical-grammatical or ancient-near east hermeneutic to be the authority, (or patristics and church tradition) but we can’t discount the ability of God to speak in ways other than the way it was understood by the original human authors of scripture. I think an argument could be made that one of the divine aspects of speech/language in general is that we often say more than we mean, and our words can be more true than the truth we understand. It’s very difficult to build systems around this fact, which is why I appreciate the fact that Calvinism, properly understood, makes room for our inability to understand things completely, since we are dependent on God. I also really like the part at the end about living in a story. Calvinism seems to me the best way to infuse meaning into the mundane parts of life - you don’t need to attend a Divine Liturgy to be a part of Gods plan. Leibniz philosophy of our world being the “best of all possible worlds” might be better framed as the best of all possible stories.
![Путин и ПЕСКОВ ждут звонка от ТРАМПА 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sm8iV0SxRHk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Путин и ПЕСКОВ ждут звонка от ТРАМПА 😁 [Пародия]](/img/tr.png)
How did I miss this? Getting started now.
Satan
What Kal says from 1:08:45 - 1:11:25 is beautiful said. Amen.
Look forward to part two.
1:41:45 Divided Man & (not)knowing
1:25:35 i’ve been said that Calvinism is somewhat ironically the easiest theology/epistemology to naturally or seamlessly arrive at the conclusion or at least the hope of apokatástasis due to its supremacy of HaShem’s Sovereignty.
just comes down to “all are the elect” (1:28:57) or “the elect are the first fruits before all others enter in as well” *(1:57:46)
with the “how do you know if you’re among the elect?” i would say my wickedness and stumbling and seemingly ever-present Flesh makes me doubt this, and “I never knew you” terrified me for a long time and worries me at times still, but-to answer the question-the Holy Spirit comforts me and guides me back and deeper in to the shalom of Christ. i can’t know for certain by my understanding that i am among the elect, but by Grace and through relationship i am told and it is instilled within my spirit that He knows me and is at work within me and calls me His own, and i put my hope in this relationship and my faith in Him.
1:29:25 I have the intuition that Pelagius was probably-himself-not pelagian.
We don’t have his writings. Just what his intellectual opponents said.
To be Pelagian is to affirm the autonomous, isolated individual (who doesn’t exist).
58:34 sin nature vs immaturity/adolescence
Free will is your fate. They are tied up in each other.
Re: Tigers and doors and choices and freedom and David Bentley Hart.
He’s a Calvinist, right?
14:53 Kal your hands are freakishly huge
This was a very good conversation. I appreciate that at some point a distinction was made between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Most of what (non-Calvinist) people refer to when they discuss Calvinism is really hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism contains all the nuance between PVK and John MacArthur.
Here were some parts I had thoughts on, the time stamps are only approximate
1:15:00 Just based on the chronology of events in Genesis 2 and 3, Adam did receive from God a concept of “good” and “not good”, and “not good” was being alone, not suffering. Suffering is something God takes on Himself, and our willingness to suffer for the sake of others is a way to experience God’s presence.
Therefore Adam was wrong to disobey, because he did not trust God, who in time made “good” what was “not good”. I do think that eventually God would have instructed them to eat of the tree; perhaps Adam’s realization that being alone was “not good” motivated him to eat when Eve did, fearing separation from her. Because God is infinite, His knowledge of good and evil is complete, while ours is always incomplete. Even if the fruit gave humans access to complete knowledge of good and evil, our finite lifespans mean that we will never uncover all the knowledge of good and evil in our own understanding, but that over time and through interaction with others, our understanding becomes more complete. So, when Jesus came “in the fullness of time”, the current understanding of good and evil would lead to the events on the cross, and the implications of those events are made more and more clear over time. That is why I believe that the reformation was a good thing that uncovered greater truths about God, the nature of good and evil, personal responsibility and the nature of man. I do not think it’s the ultimate understanding, but it is a good and functional starting point. (I do consider myself to be pretty “calvinish” btw, definitely not a free-willer.)
2:12:00 In regard to the assurance of salvation/election, I do not think it is a correct focus, and especially for the believer. It was important during and following the reformation because the catholic teachings about salvation were wrong, (although I don’t think sincere Catholics with bad theological understandings are doomed.) Rather, we should assume those who claim to be Christians are elect, including ourselves, but we should be concerned with our responsibility to God with what we do. The parable of the talents hints at a possibility that the one who buried the treasure could have deposited it at the bank. I like to think of those people as the “pew warmers”, but for the servants who were praised, their motivation was not fear of punishment from the master, but a desire to please him, or a fear of disappointing him. In this regard, the ones who have to most to worry about are those who believe they will be saved due to technicalities, in any tradition, because a Father will expect His children to understand the spirit of His commands, not just the technical implications. The wheat and the tares are indistinguishable until the time of the harvest, and they are mixed together everywhere.
2:59:00 The parts about the Holy Spirit in interpreting is very good. It’s uncomfortable for people, but sometimes God uses “bad interpretation” for good purposes all the time, including the NT authors use of the OT. It’s tempting to rely on a historical-grammatical or ancient-near east hermeneutic to be the authority, (or patristics and church tradition) but we can’t discount the ability of God to speak in ways other than the way it was understood by the original human authors of scripture. I think an argument could be made that one of the divine aspects of speech/language in general is that we often say more than we mean, and our words can be more true than the truth we understand. It’s very difficult to build systems around this fact, which is why I appreciate the fact that Calvinism, properly understood, makes room for our inability to understand things completely, since we are dependent on God.
I also really like the part at the end about living in a story. Calvinism seems to me the best way to infuse meaning into the mundane parts of life - you don’t need to attend a Divine Liturgy to be a part of Gods plan. Leibniz philosophy of our world being the “best of all possible worlds” might be better framed as the best of all possible stories.
Kolton looks exactly like I thought he would
Kal, brother…you need to host a regular podacast
What kind words. Fortunately as a white male in the year 2022, I already do--the somewhat cutely titled Universalism Against the World.