GRGR (2) "great bright hand"

[David &/or Jane]

>The nub issue in Calvinist thought is that one may 
>not imagine a limit to the knowledge of God.

This is the RESULT of the problem.  The beginning of the problem is the
FORMULA = WE can determine who is Elect Vs who is Damned.  Determinism.
The problem is those who can't imagine a limit to THEIR OWN knowledge.

The issue is CONTROL.


David Morris
AKA  DavidM at HRIHCI.COM


At 09:10 AM 6/10/99 EDT, you wrote:
>mwaia:
>
><<Isn't P's crochet the concept of Preterition?  That the Elect and the 
>Damned are not statistically determined but fore-ordained on an individual 
>basis?  It seems that a good Calvinist would say that there is "very little 
>room for hope", indeed, for anyone who is not a Calvinist Christian.  It 
>seems to humble heretical me that this runs counter to the whole concept
of a 
>Final Judgement. It would seem one's love of Christ is not so much to be 
>weighed and rewarded, but that one's label (tattooed on your forearm at the 
>Inception of time) is to be read out at the last....>>
>
>One can clearly push the wobbly statistical analogy too far (says he who 
>raised it).  For the Calvinist, the Elect and Damned are not statistically 
>determined; that's true.  The nub issue in Calvinist thought is that one may 
>not imagine a limit to the knowledge of God.  It can't be the case that God 
>live in a state of unknowing re the fate of humanity or of individual
humans. 
> Thus, HE knows who's going to fuck up, and how, right out of the chute.
The 
>problem for the theologian who finds this persuasive is squaring it with 
>notions of free will.  For the would-be believer, hopelessness and pessimism 
>are lurking bugbears.
>
David