Thomas Paine on Calvinism and Sophistry

[whag]

Not really. The modern concept of individual rights is one that did not exist in the ANE--they had their equivalents, and their own thoughts on the issue, but our modern understanding of "rights" is post-Renaissance. The concept of the absolute monarchy, ubiquitous in the ANE (and influential to their understanding of Deity) was long dead in the 17th century, and the concept of the "divine right of kings" (a more recent concept, not even present in the ANE) was in its last stages of decay. The differences in views between humanism, deism, and theism was absent in the ANE, and "rational theism" utterly unheard of.

In the ANE, deity was seen as immediate, present, and willing to act. In the stricter 17th century communities, Deity was seen as distant, foreboding, and ready to condemn.

The people of the 17th century, though not identical culturally to us today, are far closer to us than to the ANE.

The concept of human rights was very new and obviously not fully processed by people in Paine's day. You also too easily dismiss that people in the ANE believed they were entitled by god not to be mistreated, especially those in the first century who resented roman rule and the way they were treated.
I'd argue the ones who bought Paul's argument that some souls deserve hell didn't have the cognitive resources to question his logic.

[The Remonstrant]

The concept of human rights was very new and obviously not fully processed by people in Paine's day. You also too easily dismiss that people in the ANE believed they were entitled by god not to be mistreated, especially those in the first century who resented roman rule and the way they were treated.
I'd argue the ones who bought Paul's argument that some souls deserve hell didn't have the cognitive resources to question his logic.

Allow me to chime in for but a moment. By employing the terminology of "souls" and "hell" it appears you are assuming that Paul believed in a dualistic anthropology and the concept of endless conscious torment. (Perhaps I am assuming wrongly about your assumptions; I do not know.) I submit to you that neither of these assumptions are necessarily sound. More likely these assumptions have merely been read into the Pauline writings based on a centuries-old interpretive grid that may or may not be faithful to the writings of the New Testament. (Of course this is one of those areas that is up for debate. I will not delve any further on that point on this thread.)

[whag]

Yes. Unconditional reprobation and everlasting torment are not likely to make one think well of God (especially when held in tandem), even under the pretense that the "holiness" of God requires unending torment as the payment for sin. In my judgement, exhaustive divine determinism and endless conscious torment are two unnecessary impediments to Christ.

If those are unnecessary impediments, what are the necessary ones?

[robrecht]

If you are interested in a solid rebuttal to the strict Calvinist understanding of Romans 9 ...

Consider also John Chryssostom's Homily 16 on Romans.

[The Remonstrant]

Consider also John Chryssostom's Homily 16 on Romans.

I will have to check that out. Thank you.

[Outis]

You also too easily dismiss that people in the ANE believed they were entitled by god not to be mistreated, especially those in the first century who resented roman rule and the way they were treated.

Actually, the early Christian writings make fairly explicit that Christians not only expected to be mistreated, but are to thank God when it happens, to not resist the secular authorities, and to use that mistreatment as a form of witness. I'm not "dismissing" anything--the text flatly contradicts your claims.

I'd argue the ones who bought Paul's argument that some souls deserve hell didn't have the cognitive resources to question his logic.

Or (assuming for a moment that the Christians are right and we are wrong), those who argue otherwise may be ignorant or deceived by the modern concept of "I've got rights."

Whag, you are not understanding the ANE mindset. In the ANE mindset, if God decides, out of nowhere, to take everything you have as far as worldly goods, kill your servants and family, and strike you with a horrid disease, God is seen as perfectly just (in the ethical sense) to do so.

It was similar to their views on kingship: if the king randomly selected you for a horrible death for absolutely no wrongdoing on your part, he's still the king. You could run or rebel, but if you got caught or lost the fight, when it came time to face the executioner, there was no appeal to "law" or "rights" or to the courts. The king's word IS the law, and while it was horrible for the victim, that was viewed as being within his rightful authority.

[The Remonstrant]

If those are unnecessary impediments, what are the necessary ones?

In the New Testament Christ himself is the stumbling block.

[whag]

Allow me to chime in for but a moment. By employing the terminology of "souls" and "hell" it appears you are assuming that Paul believed in a dualistic anthropology and the concept of endless conscious torment. (Perhaps I am assuming wrongly about your assumptions; I do not know.) I submit to you that neither of these assumptions are necessarily sound. More likely these assumptions have merely been read into the Pauline writings based on centuries-old interpretive grid that may or may not be faithful to the writings of the New Testament. (Of course this is one of those areas that is up for debate. I will not delve any further on that point on this thread.)

For the sake I argument, remove ECT. Paul argues that the finer pottery represents human beings destined for something good. The pottery destined for potsherds represents another type of human being relegated for something bad. Please explain what you think he was getting at.

[whag]

In the New Testament Christ himself is the stumbling block.

The stumbling action is related to the penalty you said was an unnecessary impediment. They are linked.

[whag]

Actually, the early Christian writings make fairly explicit that Christians not only expected to be mistreated, but are to thank God when it happens, to not resist the secular authorities, and to use that mistreatment as a form of witness. I'm not "dismissing" anything--the text flatly contradicts your claims.



Or (assuming for a moment that the Christians are right and we are wrong), those who argue otherwise may be ignorant or deceived by the modern concept of "I've got rights."

Whag, you are not understanding the ANE mindset. In the ANE mindset, if God decides, out of nowhere, to take everything you have as far as worldly goods, kill your servants and family, and strike you with a horrid disease, God is seen as perfectly just (in the ethical sense) to do so.

It was similar to their views on kingship: if the king randomly selected you for a horrible death for absolutely no wrongdoing on your part, he's still the king. You could run or rebel, but if you got caught or lost the fight, when it came time to face the executioner, there was no appeal to "law" or "rights" or to the courts. The king's word IS the law, and while it was horrible for the victim, that was viewed as being within his rightful authority.

No, you're only addressing Paul's Christian audience. The Jewish culture expected and wanted justice in the form of a conquering messiah. Paul was dealing with a subset of them who were being taught something entirely the opposite of that.

[Outis]

No, you're only addressing Paul's Christian audience. The Jewish culture expected and wanted justice in the form of a conquering messiah. Paul was dealing with a subset of them who were being taught something entirely the opposite of that.

Whag, Paul's letters were not written to Jews. Every single letter (the authentic ones) were written to Christian communities that might have some Jewish Christians in the mix, but were predominantly composed of Gentiles. You are dealing with two similar cultures (with very few differences), but those differences, though few in number, were critical.

More than that, in my example before, the Jews still lived in a "The king's word is the law" culture. They chose, at various times, to rebel against the king (in this case, the Roman authority as a whole), but for the majority of their history the Jewish political hierarchy not only complied with Roman authority, they depended upon that authority. The Jewish Sanhedrin hated the anti-Roman rebels almost as intensely as the Romans did, and were more than willing to execute them where and when they had the authority to do so, or to turn them over to the Romans when and where they did not have the authority.

You're looking at the outliers to attempt to define the culture as a whole. That doesn't work.

[The Remonstrant]

The stumbling action is related to the penalty you said was an unnecessary impediment. They are linked.

You are conflating a certain understanding of final punishment (i.e., unending torment) with the concept of final punishment itself (which I would personally argue is final annihilation). In my view, humans are not naturally immortal. The unrighteous will not be granted immortality on judgement day. The point remains: Christ is the stumbling block in the New Testament, not a certain understanding of final punishment (though that's what it has become).

[whag]

Whag, Paul's letters were not written to Jews. Every single letter (the authentic ones) were written to Christian communities that might have some Jewish Christians in the mix, but were predominantly composed of Gentiles. You are dealing with two similar cultures (with very few differences), but those differences, though few in number, were critical.

More than that, in my example before, the Jews still lived in a "The king's word is the law" culture. They chose, at various times, to rebel against the king (in this case, the Roman authority as a whole), but for the majority of their history the Jewish political hierarchy not only complied with Roman authority, they depended upon that authority. The Jewish Sanhedrin hated the anti-Roman rebels almost as intensely as the Romans did, and were more than willing to execute them where and when they had the authority to do so, or to turn them over to the Romans when and where they did not have the authority.

You're looking at the outliers to attempt to define the culture as a whole. That doesn't work.

I didn't come close to defining the culture as a whole. I merely said you too easily dismiss the ANE culture as being complacent. Don't confuse complacency for being scared of the sword.

The human tendency to rebel against oppression and seek answers to deal with their dissatisfaction with their treatment (such as seeking religious succor) surely laid the groundwork for the concept of human rights.

You're really just quibbling, though, as the origin of human rights isn't the thrust of the OP. The OP is about the sophistry in Paul's arguments, which Paine expertly analyzes. You can stay on topic by demonstrating why Paul's arguments make sense in context. Maybe start with resources available in Paine's day that would have caused him to rebut Paul's arguments differently (or not at all).

[whag]

You are conflating a certain understanding of final punishment (i.e., unending torment) with the concept of final punishment itself (which I would personally argue is final annihilation). In my view, humans are not naturally immortal. The unrighteous will not be granted immortality on judgement day. The point remains: Christ is the stumbling block in the New Testament, not a certain understanding of final punishment (though that's what it has become).

Whether nonbelievers are rendered into a puff of smoke or smoke forever in hell is immaterial to the soundness of Paul's argument.

[Outis]

I didn't come close to defining the culture as a whole.

When you speak of the culture as a whole, yet only refer to traits found in the minority, you are most certainly defining the culture as a whole based on minority traits.

I merely said you too easily dismiss the ANE culture as being complacent. Don't confuse complacency for being scared of the sword.

Mainstream Jewish culture of that time was not merely "complacent." They were largely satisfied with Roman rule, and the Jewish authorities were positively enthusiastic about it. The Romans brought increased trade, military and political stability, for the most part respected Jewish religion (there were a few problems, but most of these were of fairly brief duration and were easily resolved). The Jews were not "afraid" of the Roman sword--they were far too willing to use that sword against their political enemies.

The human tendency to rebel against oppression and seek answers to deal with their dissatisfaction with their treatment (such as seeking religious succor) surely laid the groundwork for the concept of human rights.

The groundwork for the development of human rights was a desire for political and social stability. As a side note, the human tendency to rebel is, statistically, a minority tendency, compared to the tendency to conform. Basic psychology and political history.

You're really just quibbling

No, Whag, I'm not. You are approaching this topic in a manner that can only be described as "deliberately and knowingly incorrect to suit your rhetorical purposes," or "so bloody incompetent that you're 'not even wrong'." I don't know which of the two it is, and the possibility that both are true is there.

I don't mean the above paragraph as an insult. But you are so far away from the facts here (much less from whatever "truth" you are attempting to establish) that you are doing far more damage to your proposed viewpoint by attempting to defend it than you would be by simply keeping silent.