Many have asked what specific points led me away from Calvinism. Being a Professor of Theology that once affirmed TULIP gives me a unique perspective on this subject. However, I do not claim to be an expert in the field nor do I begrudge those who disagree with my perspective. I simply desire to interpret rightly the Word of God. Hopefully this podcast and article can help you understand why I could not continue to support the Calvinistic interpretation of the text.
I believe there are many who are hoping to convince someone they care about to leave behind their Calvinistic beliefs. I hate to tell them, but it is doubtful a blog post or a podcast will accomplish that feat. It is very difficult to convince YOURSELF to leave a long held theological perspective and next to impossible to convince another. For me it was a painstaking three year journey after I engaged in an in-depth study of the subject. I had no desire to leave Calvinism and I fought tooth and nail to defend my beloved “Doctrines of Grace” against the truths my studies led me to see. There was no single book, article, or discussion that led me to recant my adherence to the TULIP systematic.
In fact, I’m quite certain I could never have been “debated out of Calvinism.” I was much too competitive to objectively evaluate my systematic in the heat of a contentious type discussion. Even if I were to come against an argument I could not answer, I would have never admitted that to my opponent. Few individuals would be able to get around the intense emotion and pride inducing adrenaline brought on by debating theology. Our innate desire to be esteemed by others and seen as “smarter” than we really are often overwhelms any potential for learning and profitable dialogue.
If someone disagreed with me, my presumption was that they must not really understand my perspective. So, instead of attempting to listen and objectively evaluate their arguments I focused on restating my case more clearly, confidently and dogmatically. If I did not fully understand what they were saying I would often label them and dismiss them instead of taking the time to fully evaluate their point of view. I am not attempting to suggest every Calvinist makes these errors — I am only reflecting on what I now view as my mistakes.
I competed on the state level in CX Debate in High School and College. Our debate coach drilled into us the SKILL of taking on both the affirmative and negative side of every issue. And believe me, that is a learned skill. It is very difficult to put down one view in the defense of another opposing view, especially if you are emotionally and intellectually attached to a given perspective. It is rare to find real objectivity in a discussion among theologically minded individuals over a doctrine as emotionally charged and intimately personal as that of our salvation. This is ESPECIALLY true of those who have made a living and developed their identity around a particular set of beliefs. Imagine RC Sproul, for example, coming to believe he was mistaken on these points of doctrine. Think how much it would cost him and his reputation as a scholar to recant those views. This is never an easy or painless transition.
I say all this to tell any Calvinistic readers who may have clicked on this link in order to refute my claims: I am NOT so naive as to think this article or podcast is going to convince you to leave Calvinism, thus that is NOT my goal in creating it. My goal however, is that you simply understand the reasons I left Calvinism. That most likely cannot happen if you begin with an axe to grind or a point to defend. Can we put down the weapons and first seek to hear and fully understand each other before launching into a debate? If you finish this article or listen to my podcast and walk away still as Calvinistic as you are right now, but you understand why I felt I had to leave Calvinism then I will consider this a great success.
I adopted all five points of the the Calvinistic TULIP when I was a freshman in college after digesting books from John MacArthur, RC Sproul, JI Packer and later John Piper. Louie Giglio, the man who brought John Piper into the mainstream through events like Passion, was one of my father’s close friends. My first ministry position was with GRACE at Hardin-Simmons University modeled after Louie’s ministry at Baylor University in the 80s. Here is where I worked along side Matt Chandler, being discipled by the same mentor. I grew very convinced in my Calvinism over the next decade of life even helping to start a new “Reformed” Baptist Church that split off from my home church. (This is where my parents and all their friends were attending. I only see now how much this must have hurt them.) Later I served on staff at this church and then began working for the state convention. We hired John Piper along with various other notable Calvinistic communicators to speak at many of the events I coordinate. I very much loved being apart of this “brotherhood” of ministers who proudly affirmed the doctrine of Spurgeon and the forefathers of our Southern Baptist faith. I was a card carrying member of the “Founders” of the SBC and would never have dreamed that one day I would be writing this article.
One morning I was reading a book by AW Tozer, a man I knew was respected in the Calvinistic community. John Piper often quoted him and people referenced his works regularly in my Reformed circles. Some of what he wrote simple did not fit into my paradigm. “Isn’t Tozer a Calvinist,” I remember thinking out loud? I distinctly remember how I felt when I learned that AW Tozer and CS Lewis, two men I greatly respected, did not affirm TULIP. At that point I remembered what my debate training taught me and I realized I had never really objectively and thoroughly vetted the scholarly views that oppose Calvinism. This started my journey.
Six months to a year into this sporadic study of doctrines I was not the least bit convinced that Calvinism was wrong. Even after being presented with several convincing arguments against my long held beliefs, I subconsciously felt I had too much too lose to leave my Calvinism. My reputation, my friends, my ministry connections…all gone if I recant my views on this! I had converted way too many people and hurt way too many relationships in defense of these views for me to go back on what I was certain to be true. However, my years of training in debate helped me to recognize this bias and proceed with my studies nonetheless. As I was trained, I forced myself to drop my preconceived ideas, my biases, and anything that might hinder me from fully understanding the other perspective.
In that process there were five key truths that came to light which eventually lead me out of my Calvinism. Below is a short summary of those views, but on the podcast titled “5 Points OUT of Calvinism“ I expound on each of these more thoroughly:
POINT #1: I came to realize that the “foresight faith view” (classical Wesleyan Arminianism) was not the only scholarly alternative to the Calvinistic interpretation.
I had so saturated myself with Calvinistic preachers and authors that the only thing I knew of the opposing views was what they told me. Thus, I had been lead to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint all non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized I had been misled on this point, I was more open to consider other interpretations objectively.
I found a much more robust and theologically sound systematic in what is called “The Corporate View of Election,” which so happened to be the most popular view among the biblical scholars of my own denomination (Southern Baptists). Much more can be said about this view that I will not take the liberty to expound upon in this article. However, I must warn readers that the all too common phrase, “nations are made up of individuals too,” does not even begin to rebut the claims of this perspective. Individuals are just as much involved in the Corporate perspective as they are the Calvinistic perspective (maybe even more so). Anyone who believes the Corporate view is easily dismissed with that simple one-liner has not yet come to understand it rightly. In my experience, very few Calvinists give this view the attention it deserves because it requires a shift in perspective that, if recognized, would undermine their entire premise.
Do you understand “The Corporate View of Election”…I mean really understand it? Could you defend it in a debate if you had to? Could you explain it objectively to a classroom of students? Are you willing to study it and evaluate its claims?
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” -Aristotle
Point #2: I came to understand the distinction between the doctrine of Original Sin (depravity) and the Calvinistic concept of “Total Inability.”
Calvinists teach that “the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel,”[2] but I learned that is the condition of a judicially hardened man, not a natural condition from birth (Acts 28:27-28; John 12:39-41; Mark 4:11-12; Rom. 11). Instead, God’s gracious revelation and powerful gospel appeal is the means He has chosen to draw, or enable, whosoever hears it to come. Thus, anyone who does hear or see His truth may respond to that truth, which is why they are held response-able (able-to-respond).
Listen to my sermon at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on this subject HERE.
At the time while Christ was on earth, the Israelites (in John 6 for example), were being hardened or blinded from hearing the truth. Only a select few Israelites (a remnant) were given by the Father to the Son in order for God’s purpose in the election of Israel to be fulfilled. That purpose was not referring to God’s plan to individually and effectually save some Jews, but His plan to bring the LIGHT or REVELATION to the rest of the world by way of the MESSIAH and HIS MESSAGE so that all may believe (John 17:21b).
The vine the Jews are being cut off of in Romans 11 is not the vine of effectual salvation, otherwise how could individuals be cut off or grafted back into it? The vine is the LIGHT of REVELATION, the means through which one may be saved that was first sent to the Jews and then the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). The Gentiles are being granted repentance or “grafted into the vine” so as to be enabled to repent. The Jews, if provoked to envy and leave their unbelief, may be grafted back into that same vine (Rom. 11:14, 23).
KEY POINT: God DOES use determinative means to ensure His sovereign purposes in electing Israel, which includes:
- (1) the setting apart of certain individual Israelites to be the lineage of the Messiah, and
- (2) the setting apart of certain individual Israelities to carry His divinely inspired message to the world (using convincing means like big fish and blinding lights to persuade their wills) and
- (3) temporarily blinding the rest of Israel to accomplish redemption through their rebellion.
However, there is no indication in scripture that:
- (1) all those who DO believe the appointed messenger’s teachings were likewise set a part by such persuasive means (especially not inward effectual means).
- (2) all those who DO NOT believe the appointed messenger’s teachings were likewise hardened from the time they were born to the time they died.
As a Calvinist I did not understand the historical context of the scriptures as it relates to the national election of Israel followed by their judicial hardening. When the scriptures spoke of Jesus hiding the truth in parables, or only revealing Himself to a select few, or cutting off large numbers of people from seeing, hearing and understanding the truth; I immediately presumed that those were passages supporting the “T” of my T.U.L.I.P. when in reality they are supporting the doctrine of Israel’s judicial hardening.
“FROM AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, WESTERN CHRISTIANITY HAS TENDED TO INTERPRET THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AND WITH REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS. DURING THOSE SAME CENTURIES THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN FAR LESS EMPHASIZED AND SELDOM EVER CONTROVERSIAL IN EASTERN ORTHODOXY. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT AUGUSTINE AND LATER CALVIN, WITH THE HELP OF MANY OTHERS, CONTRIBUTED TO A HYPER INDIVIDUALIZATION OF THIS DOCTRINE THAT WAS HARDLY WARRANTED BY ROMANS 9-11, EPH. 1, AND I PETER 2? IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE MAJOR EMPHASIS IN BOTH TESTAMENTS FALLS UPON AN ELECT PEOPLE — ISRAEL (OT) AND DISCIPLES OR CHURCH (NT)?” – James LEO GARRETT
Point #3: I realized that the decision to humble yourself and repent in faith is not meritorious. Even repentant believers deserve eternal punishment.
Calvinists are notorious for asking the unsuspecting believer, “Why did you believe in Christ and someone else does not; are you smarter, or more praiseworthy in some way?” I asked this question more times than I can remember as a young Calvinist. What I (and likely the target of my inquiry) did not understand is that the question itself is a fallacy known as “Question Begging.” (or more specifically “plurium interrogationum” or “Complex Question”)
Begging the question is a debate tactic where your opponent presumes true the very point up for debate. For instance, if the issue being disputed was whether or not you cheat on your taxes and I began the discussion by asking you, “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes yet?” I would be begging the question.
Likewise, in the case of the Calvinist asking “Why did you made this choice,” he is presuming a deterministic response is necessary thus beginning the discussion with a circular and often confounding game of question begging. The inquiry as to what determines the choice of a free will presumes something other than the free function of the agent’s will makes the determination, thus denying the very mystery of what makes the will free and not determined.
The cause of a choice is the chooser. The cause of a determination is the determiner. It is not an undetermined determination, or an unchosen choice, as some attempt to frame it. If someone has an issue with this simply apply the same principle to the question, “Why did God choose to create mankind?” He is obviously all self-sustaining and self-sufficient. He does not need us to exist. Therefore, certainly no one would suggest God was not free to refrain from creating humanity. So, what determined God’s choice to create if not the mysterious function of His free will?
In short, whether one appeals to mystery regarding the function of man’s will or the function of the Divine will, we all eventually appeal to mystery. Why not appeal to mystery BEFORE drawing conclusions that could in any way impugn the holiness of God by suggesting He had something to do with determining the nature, desire and thus evil choices of His creatures?
What also must be noted is that the decision to trust in Christ for our salvation is not a meritorious work. Asking for forgiveness does not merit being forgiven. Think of it this way. Did the prodigal son earn, merit or in any way deserve the reception of his father on the basis that he humbly returned home? Of course not. He deserved to be punished, not rewarded. The acceptance of his father was a choice of the father alone and it was ALL OF GRACE. The father did not have to forgive, restore and throw a party for his son on the basis that he chose to come home. That was the father’s doing.
Humiliation and brokenness is not considered “better” or “praiseworthy” and it certainly is not inherently valuable. The only thing that makes this quality “desirable” is that God has chosen to grace those who humble themselves, something He is in no way obligated to do. God gives grace to the humble not because a humble response deserves salvation, but because He is gracious.
Point #4: I accepted the fact that a gift doesn’t have to be irresistibly applied in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it.
According to Calvinism, God does not merely enable people to believe (as the scriptures say), but He has to actually change their very nature so as to certainly make them believe. As a Calvinist I remember shaming other Christians for “stealing God’s glory” by suggesting they played any role in their salvation. I insisted they would be “boasting” to believe that they chose to come to Christ unless they first admitted that God irresistibly changed their nature to make them want to come. I recall a wise elder from my home church challenging me on this point by asking, “Why do you believe God’s choice of you for no apparent reason is less boast worthy than his choice of me for being a weak beggar?” I honestly did not know what he meant at the time, but I do now.
At the time of that encounter I had not reached the pigsty of my life. I was young and arrogant. I had never really been broken by my sin and brought face to face with my depravity. I thought I understood forgiveness and grace but truthfully it was not until much later in my life that I would be brought to the end of my self. I used to think the idea that God chose to save me before I was born and done anything good or bad was humbling, but it is not near as humbling as the reality that God would choose to save me in the middle of my worst sin, my brokenness, my humiliation and my shame. Like the prodigal who returned home from the pigsty of his life, broken and humiliated, seeking to beg for handouts, deserving nothing but punishment, receives instead the gracious love of a father, I too felt the choice of a Father to forgive me right then and there in the middle of my filth. It was not some theological concept of God picking me for no apparent reason out of the mass of humanity at some distant inexplicable time before time was. It was my Daddy choosing to love me in the middle of my deepest sin and pride crushing shame. No one…no Arminian, no Calvinist or any one in between…I mean NO ONE boasts about being forgiven like that. If they do, or they think others would, I cannot imagine they have ever been there.
“But let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.” (Jer. 9:24)
Why can’t we give God all the glory for enabling mankind to respond to His gracious truth? Why must he irresistibly cause our acceptance of that truth in order for Him to get full glory for giving it?
It in no way robs God of glory by suggesting He does not irresistibly determine men’s choice to accept or reject the gospel appeal. In fact, it seems to lesson His glory by making Him appear disingenuous in that appeal sent to all people. Should not God get the glory even for the provision of those who reject Him?
“A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.” – C.S. Lewis
Point #5: I came to understand that sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God that would be compromised by the existence of free moral creatures.
Some seem to believe that for God to be considered “sovereign” then men cannot have a free or autonomous will. Should sovereignty be interpreted and understood as the necessity of God to “play both sides of the chess board” in order to ensure His victory? Or should it be understood as God’s infinite and mysterious ways of accomplishing His purposes and ensuring His victory in, through, and despite the free choices of creation?
I’m not pretending that we can really understand His infinite ways or the means by which He accomplishes all things in conjunction with man’s will. We cannot even understand our own ways, much less His. But, I’m saying that the revelation of God’s holiness, His unwillingness to even tempt men to sin (James 1:13), His absolute perfect nature and separateness from sin (Is. 48:17), certainly appears to suggest that our finite, linear, logical constructs should not be used to contain Him (Is. 55:9).
One point that really helped me to understand the apparent contradiction of this debate was realizing the divine attribute of sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God. Calvinists always argue that God cannot deny Himself or His eternal nature, which is true. God cannot stop being God. Based on this Calvinists conclude that because God is eternally sovereign that He cannot deny that sovereignty, an attribute of His very nature, by allowing for others to have any measure of control or authority.
What the Calvinist fails to see is that sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God. Sovereignty means “complete rule or dominion over creation.” For God to be in control over creation there has to be something created in which to control. He cannot display His power over creatures unless the creatures exist. Therefore, before creation the concept of sovereignty was not an attribute that could be used to describe God. An eternal attribute is something God possesses that is not contingent upon something else.
The eternal attribute of God is His omnipotence, which refers to His eternally limitless power. Sovereignty is a temporal characteristic, not an eternal one, thus we can say God is all powerful, not because He is sovereign, but He is sovereign because He is all powerful, or at least He is as sovereign as He so chooses to be in relation to this temporal world.
If our all-powerful God chose to refrain from meticulously ruling over every aspect of that which He creates, that in no way denies His eternal attribute of omnipotence, but indeed affirms it. It is the Calvinist who denies the eternal attribute of omnipotence by presuming the all-powerful God cannot refrain from meticulous deterministic rule over His creation (i.e. sovereignty). In short, the Calvinist denies God’s eternal attribute of omnipotence in his effort to protect the temporal attribute of sovereignty. Additionally, an argument could be made that the eternal attributes of God’s love and His holiness are likewise compromised by the well meaning efforts of our Calvinistic brethren to protect their theory of deterministic sovereignty over the temporal world.
Please understand, sovereignty is most certainly an attribute of God, but it is a temporal attribute. The Omnipotent God has not yet taken full sovereign control over everything on earth as it is in heaven. Is not that His prerogative? Passages throughout the bible teach that there are “authorities” and “powers” which are yet to be destroyed, and that have been given dominion over God’s creation.
Isaiah 24:21
A time is coming when the Lord will punish the powers above and the rulers of the earth.
Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Colossians 2:20
You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world.
1 Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come; Christ will overcome all spiritual rulers, authorities, and powers, and will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father.
Don’t misunderstand my point. I affirm that God is greater than these powers and authorities. He created them after all.
Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
And one day God will strip them of that authority:
Colossians 2:15
God stripped the spiritual rulers and powers of their authority. With the cross, he won the victory and showed the world that they were powerless.
Much more could be said, but in short we must refrain from bringing unbiblical conclusions based upon our finite perceptions of God’s nature. We must accept the revelation of scripture. He is Holy (Is. 6:3). He does not take pleasure in sin (Ps. 5:4). Some moral evil does not even enter His Holy mind (Jer. 7:31). He genuinely desires every individual to come to Him and be saved (2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). No man will stand before the Father and be able to give the excuse, “I was born unloved by my Creator. I was born unchosen and without the hope of salvation. I was born unable to see, hear or understand God’s revelation of Himself.” No! They will stand without excuse (Rm. 1:20). God loves all people (Jn. 3:16), calls them to salvation (2 Cor. 5:20), reveals Himself to them (Titus 2:11) and provides the means by which their sins would be forgiven (1 Jn. 2:2).
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
[2] http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/
Here are some helpful quotes regarding how we should approach this discussion:
“Paul did not mean, that this (being puffed up, i.e. arrogant) is to be reckoned as a fault attributable to learning—that those who are learned are often self-complacent, and have admiration of themselves, accompanied with contempt of others. Nor did he understand this to be the natural tendency of learning—to produce arrogance, but simply meant to show what effect knowledge has in an individual, that has not the fear of God, and love of the brethren; for the wicked abuse all the gifts of God, so as to exalt themselves.” -John Calvin
“We got into an argument over the color of love. I said it was pink, and he said it was red. So you see, I had no other choice but to stab him.” ― Jarod Kintz
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.”
― Robert Quillen
“The most important tactic in an argument next to being right is to leave an escape hatch for your opponent so that he can gracefully swing over to your side without an embarrassing loss of face.” ― Stephen Jay Gould
“I am very cautious of people who are absolutely right, especially when they are vehemently so.” ― Michael Palin
Dr Wagner,
Thank you for reminding Dr Flowers about my questions. Thank you also for sharing your thoughts about Calvinism.
As I mentioned before, I am a Calvinist, and I am fully aware of the issues you raised regarding its harm. In fact, last Friday, from the pulpit, I expressly warned my church the dangers of hyper-Calvinism. There will always be the harmful elements or potential harm in any theological construct. This is when one does not realize the limits to such constructs and begin to take it to its so-called rational/logical end, turning a blind eye to Scriptures that do not support or contradict the systematized construct, or twist/mold the contradicting Scriptures to fit the construct. Then, we will see the ugly side or the harmful side of any theology, hence, we see hyper-Calvinism, hyper-Arminianism, hyper-dispensationalism, replacement theology, and the list goes on. This is when theology becomes ‘inspired’ by its proponents and those who dsagree are either in ‘error’ [and need to be shown the errors of his/her way] or worse.. being given the label ‘heretic’ and ‘damned’.
I adopt an approach, that there are limits to any theology and never go overboard. A Calvinist or be it an Arminian [I personally do not like putting labels] must be aware of the limits and even flaws in the theology and be honest about it. This side of eternity, we with all our human limitations to understand and the fact that Scriptures do not reveal everything now and it will take perhaps whole eternity for us to fully grasp…. one can only be humble and say ‘I do not have all the answers’.
Just to share, in Malaysia, sharing the gospel to certain group of people means prosecution. There are two pastors that really touched my life, one is an Arminian [kidnapped and no one knows where he is.. may be martyred already] and another is a Reformed Baptist, who spents his evening going around on his bicycle searching for opporyunity to share the gospel, who daringly share to anyone who is willing to listen despite the fact he can land up in jail… Do I for a minute even think such people are, especially the Reformed pastor, is doing it out of duty? Never crossed my mind. I also know, a Calvinist brother, who despite being a diabetic, having spinal problem… drove his SUV into the interior to reach out to the native people living at the fringrs ofthe jungle…. he did it not because it is a duty. Yes, he may not have all the answers with regards to how to balance everything between God’s sovereignity, human responsibility, election, predestination… etc. but one thing is clear he would not have done this ministry unless there is a genuine love for the lost.
Thank you Edlic for sharing those wonderful stories of faithful brothers identified with different theologies but each serving the Lord in risk of their lives in Malaysia. I wish I was on the front lines there with you and them.
Like you, those faithful men probably do not push the issue of election if they are Calvinist, or the issue of losing salvation if they are Arminian, or push whatever controversial issue they believe is true whatever the theology of which they have been convinced. They just want to see souls saved.
And I truly hope their main motive is love for Christ and His love for the all who are lost. Persecution certainly keeps pretenders in the faith to a minimum. But they can still exist, even in the midst of persecution. And some men unfortunately “love” the thrill of risk and the honor they receive from others for taking it. Usually you can tell how much they truly love the lost by how much the love the brethren also.
Please address me as Brian. We may only know each other in these few words we’ve shared, but we are brothers, and the Lord doesn’t want us to greet each other with titles (Matt 23:8-10). Thx.
Blessings.
Bro. Brian,
It is our Asian culture to address someone with title.. it is a sign of respect, unless that person is someone we have known for a longer time.
I can assure you their motive is love. Yes, it is true some men ‘went to war’ for the adventure, glory, booty… but there are many who risked their lives out sacrificial love of God.
There will always be diversity of theological views and as long as they do not violate cardinal truths that all of us across the divide hold so dearly, there should be liberty and respect. What saddened me the most is how fellow believers ‘bashed’ each other over theological differences when the focus should be ‘preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom ….. to all nations… and the end shall come’ , just like John wrote… maranatha… looking forward to His coming Kingdom.
Bro. Edlic I appreciate that you dropped the “Dr.” in your greeting address to me. Cultures can have very good motives behind their traditions, but Jesus is clear about commanding His disciples not to greet one another based on titles for positions they might hold in ministry. Christianity is to be prescriptive to culture not descriptive of culture except when to win souls, but always under submission to Christ’s law.
More teaching needs to be done on how important it is to discern what the gospel is, what sound doctrine is, and how all else are doubtful matters to be held personally but not used to divide the brethren. The gospel must divide between who I call “Brother” and sound doctrine must help me discern who is qualified to shepherd God’s people and who is not. But teachings of the gospel and sound doctrine are very clearly written out in Scripture. They are not formulated by theological inference or extrapolation and definitely not from man-made tradition outside of Scripture.
Bro. Brian,
Thanks for sharing. Concerning culture, there is nothing wrong as long as it does not violates biblical principles. On hindsight into history, one of the main stumbling block to Christian mission in some parts of Asia, was a very Western centered approach… meaning bringing a person to the faith was also to Westernized a person. Mission work came with imperialism and no less cultural imperialism. Missionaries to China later learned to live like Chinese, speak Chinese to reach out to Chinese people.
I do not see any problem in greeting a person formally [especially when you hardly know the person personally] and do not fully agree with your interpretation of Matthew 23:8-10. If you have not visited Malaysia, perhaps a trip to my country and visit to Chinese, Tamil, Indonesian, Borneo, and Native churches, you will see how culture has been adapted to biblical truths. I am not sure about your background or societal backdrop, I live in a very diverse society.
“More teaching needs to be done…………. They are not formulated by theological inference or extrapolation and definitely not from man-made tradition outside of Scripture.”
I say Amen.
By the way, going back to my main reason for visiting this website, will Dr Flowers answer my questions soon? It is alright if he is not free to do so although I would really appreciate if he could.
Thanks again.
Hi Bro. Edlic… I just reminded Leighton again last night. I agree with what you said about missionaries or foreign believers adopting as much cultural norms as possible and greeting formally with formal secular greetings… similiar to Mr. or if a judge or king or secular doctor whatever title fits that culture. But the command not to greet those in ministry by a title is a command. There is no room to miss the clear meaning.
Bro. Brian, thanks for your reply. I hope he would reply soon.
I need some answers also insights into TGC’s agenda especially in Malaysia. I want to know their link with certain seminars/conferences and their organizers in Malaysia. I want to be aware because the young adults in my church have been actively attending them and now are promoting those seminars from the pulpit.
I, even though a Calvinist, I certainly do not agree people pushing their theological views in the expense of church unity, communion, and the leadership of affected churches. I think it is very unscriptural that someone pushes a certain theology without regards for the leadership of a church no matter how convicted or convinced the person is.
For example, I reject certain teachings of the Pentecostals/Charismatics, but when I was invited to preach in an Assembly of God church, I will talk on issues we disagree on simply because out of respect of leadership unless being asked to.
I am worried that TGC through their Malaysian partners are pushing Calvinism and undermining non-Calvinist churches.
I’ll try again… to remind him. I’ll paste this comment from you in an email to him.
Hi Edlic
Do you have Facebook? Message me there. There is a man named KL NG on Facebook who lives there in Malaysia who may be able to give you more insights.
I will NOT talk on issues we disagree on simply because out of respect of leadership unless being asked to. [mistake]
Bro Brian, I do not use Facebook. Could I have KL NG contact? Thanks.
Edlic… I don’t have it, but will let Leighton know you are asking for it.
Hi Edlic! Here are the email addresses Leighton gave me to pass on to you. They are the ones who invited him to come to Malaysia during his last visit there.
Wing Choong Cheah – cheahchang@gmail.com,
“Anthony K. K. Too” -kktoo@gmail.com,
Andrew Wong – andrew.wong@compass.com.my,
Dexter Ng – sagcfamily@yahoo.com,
Adrian Low – adrianlcw@gmail.com,
Kien Ng – kienlock.ng@gmail.com
Hope this is of some help to you in your research!
Bro. Brian, thanks. I do not know any of them in the list. Would Dr Flowers answer my questions? I wish to communicate with him. I have been waiting for more than two weeks.
Edlic, you asked for those addresses… Do you feel awkward writing to any of them? I would think they would have a better idea of your situation than Leighton, and I would think they would hold the same theological perspective as him.
But if you can list your specific questions again in a response here, I will copy and send them to Leighton. I may try answering them also. Blessings.
Bro. Brian, yes I did ask for the address of someone Dr Flowers referred to as KL Ng. I thought Dr. Flowers would give me some information regarding that person first. Those on the name list are total strangers to me and this issue about the spread of Calvinism is to a certain degree sensitive. Just to put into perspective, my church,s interim moderator (we do not have a pastor since the previous one left) is supportive of seminars related to TGC. Here are my specific questions again for Dr Flowers and perhaps you could also shed some light. Some of them may be just a repeat .. please bear with me.
1- What TGC really stand for and what is their main agenda?
2- Are they purposefully spreading Calvinism without regards for leadeship of churches who do not hold their theological views, i.e. TULIP? Is it their policy to do that?
3- Who are the key leaders in TGC and are they hyper-Calvinist, e.g. believe in double predestination, fatalism etc.?
4- What define hyper-Calvinism according to you and Dr Flowers?
5- Who are TGC’s main contacts or should I say collaborators in Malaysia? I know roughly there are some Christian para-church groups that are actively organizing seminars.
6- Is what is happening in United States and somehow in Malaysia too is what some termed as New-Calvinism that appeals to young adults?
7- Does TGC really promotes a balanced view of Scriptures via a sound bible study approach (e.g. historical-grammartical and literal) or are they imposing a theological grid on Scriptures. and ends up doing eisgesis?
8- Waht do you think about John MacAuthur, he is a 5 pointsCalvinist, and pre-mill… in many ways my own views are very simikar to what is taught in Master’s Seminary.
9- What is TGC’s agenda for Malaysia through their local partners?
10- Based on what you know [Dr Flowers] how critical is the situation in Malaysia with regards to Calvinism vs others, please elaborate? [I think it must be bad enough that they invited you an ex-Calvinist and a professor of theology to come to Malaysia.
11- What do both of you think concerning ‘Christ-centred’ or Gospel-centred hermeneutics, seemed to be popuar with these people? [I personally think it actually divert people from an objective study of Scriptures though it sound so ‘spiritual’ or so ‘Reformed’]
These are my questions. Just to be open, I am asking them because I want to do what isright within my small sphere of influence. I am a nobody in the Malaysian church. I hold no office.Nonetheless, I preached and teach regularly in my church; do missio work among native people; and sometimes get invited to preach in other churches.
My biggest concern is that people get distracted from the preaching of Kingdom Gospel, unity of the body, compassion for the needy and fellow believers because of theological ‘conflicts’. I am reminded of how even after the Reformation, even some evangelical groups got persecuted almost the same way the Roman Catholic church did it on heretics just because they did not agree with the theology of those in power in Protestant Europe. I also remember that Martin Luther depite been almost ‘venerated’ by some was ruthless against if I am not mistaen the Anabaptists and definitely was an anti-Jew. His writtings later on inspired a monster like Hitler who adored him in his book Mein Kampf.
I also fear that by systematically and continually exposing a person to just one theological perspective, the ability of believers to think critically and objectively is impeded. Hence, we can end up in the scenerio where someone believes something is correct because of theological in-breeding.. affirming one another without even truly considering other valid views. I say this with humility as a Calvinist, I am onvicted about the theology I hold BUT I will never consider it fautless or flawless.. in other words ONLY the Scriptures are inspired NOT my theology… and an Arminian brother or sister can be as just as convicted as I… I want to promoted thinking not in-breeding.. so to speak.
Thanks Bro Brian and Dr Flowers
Hi Edlic,
Not sure why your pressing for Leighton to answer these questions on this post it is about the Potter’s Promise an amazing book that explains Romans 9 very thoroughly!
Where you say this below I find hope, because I agree no systematic held above God’s Word should be arduously held to!
Hence, we can end up in the scenerio where someone believes something is correct because of theological in-breeding.. affirming one another without even truly considering other valid views. I say this with humility as a Calvinist, I am onvicted about the theology I hold BUT I will never consider it fautless or flawless..
I did not go through theological training, but what I can tell you is when I was first introduced to your systematic in 2013 after only 5 short years as a believer it made me confused🤔 By that I mean the over whelming love I knew that came into my heart because of what Jesus did for me on the cross was not for me alone!!! This was from my reading of the Scriptures alone with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. I knew what was being presented to me didn’t line up with what He had taught me in His Word. When I finally (Praise God alone!) stumbled upon Leighton’s site I knew finally minus older works that the revelation in Scripture was enough and for all people. Of course because God is so gracious and Amazing He also gave me a (now) close friend who was going through similar things in her family that I was going through very encouraging!!! We are made in God’s image and I think we know what love is and for God to make people specifically to go to hell goes against His character. Here is a good post to read along with many others you can find.
https://soteriology101.com/2018/12/23/critique-of-tgc-article-how-does-a-mom-pray-as-a-calvinist/
But the main point here is your desire to know about the TGC it can be found online at; https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/sections/arts-culture/
Thank you for caring about the lives of others
In Him alone we can stand
Thanks for sharing brother. I am actually corresponding with Bro. Brian and have posted earlier some questions for Dr Flowers [which remained unanswered]… if you would follow the conversation you will understand the context in which those questions were posted.
God bless you.
Bro Brian and also Dr Flowers,
I have re-listed my questions and posted them on April 6. I have been waiting for almost a month now. I do not want to sound rude, but if Dr Flowers is not keen or is not available to answer my specific questions just be frank with me. I will not continue asking after this. Thanks.
There are some that I may be able to find some kind answers on TGC website BUT I sincerely do not think I will find out clearly what is their agenda.. people can say all kinds of things on their website so to speak.
Thank you for your time.
Edlic, let’s try this… email me directly – brianwagner@vbc.edu. That way I will have your email address and will forward it to Leighton’s personal email. That’s about the best I can do. Leighton has become very busy in the last months. I am sure it is just an oversight on his part, trying to grapple with all the contacts that are being made to him. But have you tried emailing any of those in your country, using the email addresses I gave you? If not, why not? Is there a problem taking that kind of initiative in your culture. Thanks.
I would not believe TGC is trying to “undermine churches with their agenda”, though that is indeed what may be happening. I would tend to believe that these are true brothers in Christ who are just loyal to some pretty harmful teaching, having trusted their teachers’ authority for it, instead of the clear teaching of Scripture. They would not see it as “sheep stealing”, I wouldn’t think, but again, that may end up being the result. That happens with all dogmatic theological positions. Paul warned clearly about this to the elders/pastors of Ephesus –
Act 20:28-31 NKJV – 28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.”
Bro. Brian,
I will e-mail you directly. Thanks for helping me.
Brother Edlic, I have not received an email from you yet. Have you sent it, and if so, can you double check if you copied my address correctly? Also, I was still wondering if you did try to contact any of your fellow Malaysians from the list of email addresses Leighton provided. Thanks.
Bro Brian, I think your e-mail domain is incomplete.. edu.?
Bro Brian, I double checked your e-mail … I did not realize it does not have the usual country extension.. unique to me. I will e-mail you now.
Got it, Brother Edlic.
I have tried to find a way to reach Dr. Flowers and cannot. So this is the best I can do. I have just started reading “God’s Provision for All” and appreciate it very much. We have, in our Bible studies, a young lady who had Calvinist friends and she is quite confused. We have helped her quite a bit, I think, and Dr. Flowers’ book is a valuable resource.
But in the introduction I found two things that bear comment. The first is regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve already knew good — they knew God. More information and knowledge down that road is always desireable. All they did not know was evil — the results of disobedience. Dr. Flowers seemed to indicate that it was simply the increase in knowledge that was bad, and that might need to be re-thought. Increase in the knowledge of God, and of His creation is not bad. It was the knowledge of evil that was so bad.
The second thing has two parts: regarding Noah’s Flood. If you check the ages of the sons and the age of Noah when he entered the Ark, you will find that the building time was much less than 100 years. The 120 year limit mentioned in Genesis 6 has to do with the final lifespan of a man, which is what we have today.
And about the children dying. The clue here may be found in Abraham’s discussion with our Lord before the Sodom destruction. 50 righteous men? 40? 30? …down to ten. If there had been only ten righteous men in Sodom, the city would have been spared. The point is that children being raised up would have a choice between good and evil. But they didn’t. We read, essentially, the same in Genesis 6. No choices left for the children. So God collected them, if you will, despite a moment’s pain and panic. It was a mercy on God’s part, not the vindictiveness some claim.
My husband is Barry Setterfield and we have been Bible students for, collectively, about 80 years. I am 71 and he is now 77. About 25 years ago I was the coordinator for deaf interpreters for the Ligonier Conferences on the west coast. I had no idea at the time what Reformed theology was and I can remember vividly the first time I heard about predestination. I was not the interpreter at the time and I remember looking around in shock to see if others were stunned by it, but they all seemed to accept it. I went home and spent about 2 years combing through the Bible to find out how anyone could believe that. Actually, the answer was very simple, in Genesis itself. “If….then….” Why all those warnings if no one had a choice? There are lots more reasons for my resignation from working with Sproul, but that is the first.
At any rate, if there is any way Dr. Flowers is interested in these comments, great. If not, that’s fine, too. God bless you all.
In Christ,
Helen Setterfield
I could add another reason to leave Calvinism. Have you ever seen the video of a Calvinist preacher evangelizing an atheist named Pinecreek. Pinecreek asks the preacher…tell me about Jesus and salvation. The evangelist starts out as you would normally expect but within a minute Jesus takes a back seat to Election. It causes you to want to jump through the TV screen and grab that preacher and say STOP! He keeps jumpimg back and forth between belief in Jesus and election. It literally makes you cringe. I truly felt sorry for the atheist, that he had to hear this sermon posing as the gospel. It’s truly unbiblical and awful. But don’t take my word for it…google “evangelistic calvinism pinecreek”.
Thank you for this post Richard!
Based on the search string you provided, I used it in a youtube search.
The first one listed has this title:
Kris and Calvinism: How do I get the desire to Repent?
The atheist mind thinks RATIONALLY.
The Calvinist mind is reliant upon DOUBLE-SPEAK TALKING-POINTS.
The atheist asks a question and you can see the Calvinist trying to line that question up with a TALKING-POINT.
When the questions start – the Calvinist has no problem finding an applicable TALKING-POINT.
But as the questions begin to drill down and become more pinpointed – the Calvinist starts to struggle for a few seconds trying to find a TALKING-POINT that will fit the question..
As the questions drill-down they start to reveal contradictions.
And in those cases the Calvinist evades the question altogether and simply recites some TALKING-POINT that is almost randomly selected – just to be able to say he responded to the question.
This video is REVEALING!
Br.D,
This line of thought seems ever so uncharitable. Shouldn’t you be rebuking the implied assertion that the behavior of a particular claimed proponent of a theological system can form a basis for rejecting that system? Adding something like this to Dr. flowers five well-articulated objections will only devalue them and lead away from substantive conversation about the merits of Traditionalism or Calvinism.
Further, you offer broadbrush descriptions of Calvinism that certainly will apply only in selected cases. This is also uncharitable and seems to reveal a prejudice rather than a commitment to objective, rational discourse around the issues. What if I or some other Calvinist came along and said Traditionalism should be rejected because we saw a traditionalist argue in a certain way, or present the Gospel in a certain way? I suspect you would take us back to Scripture and ask us to ground our arguments there.
As Christians, we should be basing our views on Scripture and not building them from ad hominem arguments. Dr. Flowers’ general approach to theological debate seems opposite to what I am observing in this morning’s comments.
Blessings,
THEOparadox
br.d
Hello THEOparadox and welcome.
THEOparadox
This line of thought seems ever so uncharitable. Shouldn’t you be rebuking the implied assertion that the behavior of a particular claimed proponent of a theological system can form a basis for rejecting that system?
br.d
Actually its simply being realistic – based upon consistent observable characteristics. There is a consistency over time and with the general population of Calvinists which is highly repeatable. Additionally I make the observation not to present some form of rebuke. But to highlight what is observable so that others can be informed and benefit.
THEOparadox
Adding something like this to Dr. flowers five well-articulated objections will only devalue them and lead away from substantive conversation about the merits of Traditionalism or Calvinism.
br.d
That may be one’s perception – but it certainly isn’t mine. Again see answer above.
THEOparadox
Further, you offer broadbrush descriptions of Calvinism that certainly will apply only in selected cases. This is also uncharitable and seems to reveal a prejudice rather than a commitment to objective, rational discourse around the issues.
br.d
This argument is often presented in a response to statistics and demographics on crime. There does not need to by any prejudice for persons involved. Such prejudice is only projected in the mind of an objector.
In this case the phenomenon is quite consistent.
THEOparadox
What if I or some other Calvinist came along and said Traditionalism should be rejected because we saw a traditionalist argue in a certain way, or present the Gospel in a certain way? I suspect you would take us back to Scripture and ask us to ground our arguments there.
br.d
That of course depends upon whether or not that is observed as consistent or inconsistent.
In this case – that is taken into consideration.
THEOparadox
As Christians, we should be basing our views on Scripture and not building them from ad hominem arguments. Dr. Flowers’ general approach to theological debate seems opposite to what I am observing in this morning’s comments.
br.d
In the realm of debate or dialog there are always two things to concentrate on. (1) The actual subject matter of the statements made. (2) the FORM of which those statements are made. This is where we get our list of logical fallacies.
THEOparadox
Blessings,
br.d
Thank you THEOparadox – and blessing so to you also. :-]
To br.d
I’m not sure you saw the right video. Let me be more specific….google/evangelical Calvinism/pinecreek….it’s listed on Soteriology 101, A discussion with a Calvinist, Eli Ayala….the point in seeing this video, is that instead of Scripture, counter Scripture arguing, as important as that is, this let’s you see Calvinism in action. Namely a cringe worthy gospel presentation never encountered in the pages of the Bible.
Ok thanks Richard – there appears to be two.
One with Dr. Flowers and the other one prior to that with the Athiest interview.
They are both on Youtube and the one with the Athiest interviewing Eli Ayala is titled:
Christian presup Eli Ayala and I talk about worldviews.
The one with Dr. Flowers interviewing Eli Ayala is titled:
A Discussion with a Calvinist: Eli Ayala
So anyone who wants to see both of those can use those titles in the Youtube search
I’ll go ahead and watch both of them
Hi Richard – I just watched Dr. Flower’s interview with Eli Ayala
Maybe its because I’ve been exposed to Calvinist language for so many years – I don’t know – but what this Calvinist said did not at all surprise me. It may be that years ago listening to it for the first or second time I would have had a response of disgust over his language. But its been a number of years now for me and nothing they say shocks me anymore.
On this Calvinist Eli Ayala – I see the same exact language patterns that I find typical with Calvinists.
They will firmly reject a certain concept in one statement. And then in the next statement they will smuggle that concept right back in.
For example, Dr. Flowers shows a small clip of this Calvinist’s interview with Doug the Atheist.
And Eli when asked “What can I do to desire god” instantly moves to craft statements that are HIDDEN SUBJUNCTIVE CONDITIONALS.
A subjunctive conditional is an IF-THEN statement
For example:
IF and only IF god decrees you can/will [X] then you can/will [X]
Otherwise you cannot and will not [X].
When the Calvinist says “you must repent” and omits the IF condition he is HIDING the most critical aspect of his theology. And this is what is meant by a HIDDEN subjunctive conditional.
I found this Calvinist doing the exact same thing both with the Atheist and with Dr. Flowers.
He uses language that allows for the very things he rejects.
I simply think Calvinist are taught to use misleading language because it works for them.
But I wasn’t shocked by anything he said.
Perhaps I’m just numb to the evilness of it?
Calvinism mixed in with the gospel, something I’ve never seen before and I hope I never see again.
A very illuminating question I find – is:
If Calvinism REALLY is the true Gospel – then why is it always enunciated with DOUBLE-SPEAK?
I think we should drop the name Calvinism and replace it with Fatalism. If you watch the video, that’s how Mr. Pinecreek perceived it. This is the depths to which the Gospel has sunk to.
Although there are some Calvinists who are new-bees to Calvinism who will in ignorance enunciate elements of fatalism – the serious Calvinists know the difference between fatalism and determinism.
It is the tiny little difference between “Necessary” and “Certain”.
Still – even some serious Calvinists who should know better will craft statements that enunciate fatalism.
But still there is a difference between it and determinism.
However the difference is very slight.
And that’s why we see Calvinists going there.
Really great stuff here. I’m in the process of really developing a more biblical view on these controversial issues. I have identified more with non-Calvinistic views but really enjoy listening to John MacArthur because I he really explains the scriptures clearly. Now that you have come to a newer stance in your convictions, what do you think and how do you feel about these men that you use to really follow? Thanks!
-Angel V.
Hello Angel and welcome!
I think if you review articles and posts here by non-Calvinists you’ll find they don’t trust Mr. MacArthur as an intellectually honest person.
I know that sounds a little extreme – but when one understands the bulk of the dark implications inherent in Calvin’s doctrine – and the degree of misleading and sometimes duplicitous language strategies used by Calvinist speakers – designed to hide those implications – then you’ll understand the basis for that observation. We always want to remain open minded so we allow ourselves room to recognize such things.
Blessing!
If God granted all your prayers for the week, how many people would be saved?
(FullyFreeFilms.com)
This is an in-house debate, correct?
Those who do mot agree are treated that way?
Sam
This a general comment that may or may not be helpful to anyone but me relating to free will. How does God wish to be worshiped?
From the Woman at the Well parable;
John 4:23-24 (NASB)
23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
All of God’s creation, especially the inanimate where science excels, does exactly as it was created to do. The problem comes with living beings having free will; angels, humans, and pets as “In the dog house.” if we were the automatons of TULIP and nothing more where’s the Spirit and Truth? Where’s the Chumba Wumba as in “I get knocked down, but through in Him, I’m overcome by His Spirit and the Truth, His love and forgiveness I get up again?” -with a constant ratcheting up of Oh yea, now I see it. What an idiot I’ve been!
Our worship of God, must be in spirit and truth. If we are not growing in faith we are not worshiping in spirit and truth.
Hello Glen and Welcome
Intentional misquotes seeking to highlight what I believe He wants His creation most to know:
abide in my sovereignty (John 15:9)
it is good for the heart to be strengthened by sovereignty (Heb 13:9)
Give thanks to the LORD for He is sovereign, for His sovereignty is everlasting…His sovereignty is everlasting… … (Psalm 136)
I have posted elsewhere here about my introduction to Calvinism:
https://soteriology101.com/2014/11/25/is-sovereignty-an-eternal-attribute-of-god-that-the-non-calvinist-undermines/#comment-48104
https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/#comment-48101
I want to be clear – I am not a former/recovering Calvinist. However, I was challenged about 12 years ago by two of my very good friends to examine my theology regarding God’s sovereignty. In short, they both appear to be 5-point Calvinists, and because I had never been exposed to these teachings previously, I dug deeper. About the same time, I happened to be reading in Romans 9 (which is perhaps one of the letters Peter refers to in 2 Pet 3:15-18) and this is admittedly a difficult passage to understand. In particular, I wanted to find out what kind of predestination was being discussed by Paul and whether we really served a God t
I began to read more about Calvinism, trying to stick close to people that were considered leading contemporary authorities on the subject like Loraine Boettner and RC Sproull. I also made it point to read through the entire Bible, cover to cover, with a particular view to any scriptures, no matter how indirect, that supported any of the 5 points of TULIP.
Here are a few select observations (not exhaustive by any means) of what I have found in the intervening 12 years:
– Calvinists are very quick to point out that they are “Sola Scriptura” and the implication is that anyone who is not a Calvinist is engaged in heavy-duty eisegesis, while Calvinists proudly affirm that they are the only true exegetical practitioners. While both sides are generally very sincere, and I don’t accuse Calvinists of being insincere or of being unsaved, I have generally come to the exact opposite conclusion: Calvinists bring biases to the text that cannot be reasonably inferred UNLESS you have built a systematic theology that you are furiously trying to protect. It reminds me a bit of the (in)famous Mann “Hockey Stick” model for climate change: any random dataset yields the hockey stick curve when plugged into the model. It is incapable of giving any other answer than the one Mann wants. TULIP cannot be reasonably inferred from scripture. It has to be injected into it. Once injected, it is internally very consistent, which is to be expected given that Calvin was a lawyer by training. But if you can generally show that any of the 5 points is false, the other 4 topple like dominoes.
– The word “grace” becomes a sort of codeword for the only true enlightened; the unwashed masses, in contrast, do not understand the very essence of the gospel because they are still engaged in “works”. This has given way to a hyper-grace movement, but in many ways, it is a natural consequence of TULIP.
– Warnings in scripture to “continue” in the faith are explained away as not jeopardizing one’s salvation, but merely one’s rewards. All those who fall away are thrown into the same bucket: never saved in the first place (“I never knew you” of Matt 7:23).
– “Sovereignty” is redefined in ways that are foreign to the average person and the normal understanding of the word. Extreme levels of cognitive dissonance are necessary to simultaneously hold to this extreme definition of sovereignty and any passages that hold man responsible for his choices and actions.
– Non-Calvinists are dismissed as relying strictly on romanticized appeals to God’s character rather than “Sola Scriptura”.
– Scriptures that are clear to even the smallest children, like John 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:9 have to be suitably tortured until they are bent into a shape that supports TULIP. Instead of scripture reigning supreme, TULIP reigns supreme and scripture must conform to its rigid framework. Calvinists indeed pride themselves on this very high level of internal consistency, forgetting that anyone can build an internally consistent set of equations, axioms, corollaries, etc. that are consistently false.
– A high level of spiritual pride usually accompanies Calvinist teachers.
– There is usually an appeal that when you disagree, you are either mischaracterizing what Calvinists really believe (and by implication you would embrace it if you only understood it), or you are rejecting the clear teachings of scripture. If you reject it, you are likely not one of the elect.
– Calvin was deeply influence by Augustine of Hippo. In many ways, Calvinism is Augustinianism. Augustine was confused about many things, and I am inherently suspicious of any systematic theology that derives from him.
– I emerged from my studies deeply impressed with the truth of Ps 119:160 – “The SUM of thy word is truth…” When the entirety of the Bible is considered, and not just selected Calvinistic “proof texts”, God’s ways, God’s character, God’s plan, God’s purposes, and God’s truth becomes clear.
I have been very impressed with the level of courage it takes for someone like Dr. Flowers to question decades of contrary belief and teaching, and being willing to change his theology to fit scripture rather than vice-versa. I have know a few other people like this in the course of my life, and they have my deep respect because it shows a level of intellectual honesty and humility. Dr. Flowers had much to lose and for this reason his about-face speaks all the more powerfully.
mrteebs
I have known a few other people like Dr. Flowers in the course of my life, and they have my deep respect because it shows a level of intellectual honesty and humility. Dr. Flowers had much to lose and for this reason his about-face speaks all the more powerfully.
br.d
Wonderfully said!
Thank you Dr. Flowers and Eric – for SOT101
I am interested in hearing only from those who are former Calvinists on the topic below. See the very end of this post for two questions to you.
—————————
NOTE: I respectfully request that if you are still a Calvinist, PLEASE refrain from replying because it inevitably results in auto-immune responses that are not helpful. If I were actively seeking the Calvinist point of view, I know where to go. I am here precisely because I have already weighed Calvinism, found it lacking with respect to scriptural support and common sense, and discarded it as a viable theology. I am well aware that the words “common sense” are a trigger, and will elicit pages of passionate responses from Calvinists, finger-waving that “our ways are not God’s ways.” Thank you in advance and you may consider me “virtually reproved” without the need to start furiously typing.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
—————————
I have commented elsewhere that as part of my multi-year journey to really study out the biblical support for TULIP and determinism, I took it upon myself to stop focusing exclusively on Calvinist proof-texts and instead just read through the entire Bible to see if the over-arching message supported or rejected this theology. Without hyperbole, I can say that on almost every page, I found that the teachings of Calvinism are not supported (and are indeed directly opposed) to that of scripture and require one to jettison about 99.94% of the Bible in order to accommodate a few proof-texts tossed about by Calvinists. This percentage is not an exaggeration. There are 31,102 verses in the KJV. If we generously assume that there are 200 “proof-texts” used by Calvinists (I believe the number is actually far less), this gives 0.06% of the total number of verses.
In my daily reading and studies, I have been again going cover-to-cover through the Bible in a year. When I said above “on nearly every page” this too is not an exaggeration. Let me give you a few examples from the last few days: (all passages are from the NASB)
Luke 13:34“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!”
Q: Why do You plead with those who have no choice?
Luke 14:16-24 But He said to him, “A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many; and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for everything is ready now.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first one said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of land and I need to go out and look at it; please consider me excused.’ Another one said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please consider me excused.’ Another one said, ‘I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.’ And the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ And the slave said, ‘Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.’”
Q: Why do You invite those who reject You? Was it not Your will that they accept? Why do they reject You? Why do You get angry with those who were decreed to reject You? Isn’t this like getting angry at a block of code that You Yourself wrote? Why was it necessary to compel anyone if they had no choice but to carry out Your decree?
Mark 3:5 After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
Q: Why do You get angry with (and become grieved by) those who have no choice?
1 Cor 9:26-27 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
Q: Why do Paul’s own actions have the potential to disqualify him? Even if it is argued that this is not disqualification from salvation, and only pertains to the office of Apostle and/or heavenly rewards, why does he feel the need to share an admonition with those who are merely responding in every respect to things that have already been decreed?
2 Cor 8:3 For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord…
Q: If one cannot do otherwise than that which God has decreed, why does the scripture say that “they gave of their own accord”? This strongly implies the latitude to make a right or wrong decision of one’s own free will.
2 Cor 9:7 Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Q: If one cannot do otherwise than that which God has decreed, why does the scripture say “as he has purposed in his own heart”? This strongly implies the latitude to make a right or wrong decision of one’s own free will, and to do the right things for wrong reasons (“under compulsion” or without being “cheerful”).
Here are my questions to FORMER Calvinists who are reading this:
1) What is it that turned you around in your thinking?
2) How did you manage to ignore the bulk of scripture that makes it clear man can choose to accept or reject the will of God, can grieve and frustrate God by his choices, and ultimately receives the just penalty for sin based on this choice? In other words, how did you explain the page after page of narrative that shows God appealing to man, by prophets, by Apostles, and by the biblical writers and the logical absurdity of pleading with people and indeed unsuccessfully trying to convince them to change direction if not for the existence of free will.
Correction to my math: 99.4% and 0.6% respectively.
I was saved in a Calvinist church but left the church a few months ago, looking for a new church. How do I pray? in that church we prayed to god to control everything; send an evangelist to my family to save them, be with family who lost loved ones, etc. I know that we are to ask in prayer but I do not think we should pray in the form to direct our LORD. this is important to me. I want to talk to God in the way he loves. Piper, also talk about contemplative prayer, I believe this is wrong.
Hello Sherry and welcome!
Firstly:
I bless the Lord that your internal senses warned you that things were wrong in the Calvinist environment – because they most certainly are.
Secondly:
For Calvinists to pray for the the divine will to be done – is actually a part of the Calvinist condition of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
You see – the substratum and foundational core of Calvin’s doctrine – is the underlying assertion that *ALL* events which come to pass – can only do so (1) by Calvin’s god conceiving of that event – and (2) Calvin’s god decreeing that event.
According to John Calvin’s core belief – absolutely no event can possibly come to pass without those two prerequisites.
And *ALL* events which come to pass do so infallibly – and there is nothing any fallible creature can do to resist or alter them.
So in Calvinism – every thought within your mind that you become aware of – was infallibly decreed and comes to pass irresistibly.
Since that is the case – for a Calvinist to ask for the divine will to be done – is asking god to continue being god.
Who in their right mind is going to believe that god is somehow not going to be himself – unless one prays for that?
So – based on the core doctrine of Calvinism – we should be able to see how DOUBLE-MINDED it is for a Calvinists to pray for god’s will to be done.
Now on contemplative prayer – you are absolutely spot on!
This entered the church through Catholic monks dabbling in the New Age movement.
You are very wise to stay away from it.
Some of these “so called” spiritual practices are nothing more than giving one’s self to a counterfeit spirit.
You are best to pray simply as you see exemplified in the NT.
Never give any of your faculties over to the spirit world – or let any of your faculties become passive.
The Holy Spirit always wants us to be in full possession of our soul and our body in our service to himself.
Blessings!
This!👆 I have always taught my kids that the spirit world is REAL, and that messing around with new age spirituality, Ouija boards, crystals and the like, were opening themselves up to a kind of spiritual possession that they did not want… even if they didn’t actually believe any of it, and thought it was “just for fun”. I believe we are possessed of the Holy Spirit, and sealed by the Holy Spirit, and therefore any kind of spiritual “play” should be repulsive to us.
br.d
Yes I totally agree!
.
In my understanding – as you have said – a born again believer is filled with the Holy Spirit and cannot be “Possessed” by a demonic spirit.
.
However – I have witnessed many times over the years – how a believer can give himself/herself to the “Influence” of a demonic spirit.
.
The scripture instructs the believer
1) Submit yourself to God
2) Resist the enemy
3) And he will flee
.
The scripture also teaches us that there are different kinds of σαρκός “sarkos” = flesh
To the Galatian church – Paul details “Works of the flesh”
The “Flesh” craves that which is contrary to the Holy Spirit.
.
Paul also uses examples – of religious teachers who were operating out of the “flesh” which always persecutes those who are “of the spirit”
.
So scripture shows us the “flesh” can be divided into two categories
1) Lascivious flesh
2) Religious flesh
.
The priests and religious leaders who wanted Jesus crucified – were operating out of religious flesh.
.
The problem with “flesh” is that it is SUBJECT to the prince of this world.
So the believer is to be steadfast and vigilant – because the enemy is a lion seeking whom he may devour.
.
This means – each of us must be aware of how our “flesh” operates
Our “flesh” can be bodily and it can also be religious in nature.
.
Since “flesh” is SUBJECT to the prince of this world – it follows – the more we compromise and give ourselves to our “Flesh” the more vulnerable we are.
.
In regard to this vulnerability – I have witnessed believers unwittingly giving themselves to spiritual powers they should not be dabbling with.
.
I personally have seen believers who were influenced by demonic spirits to the point where they were mentally influenced.
.
That is a very sad place to see a believer in!!!
I have participated in events in with a team of believers was working to help a believer in that situation.
The process of deliverance is exactly as the scripture teaches
1) Submit yourself to God
2) Resist the enemy
3) He will flee
.
But the individual must *WANT* to be free
And that – sad to say – is not always the case.
I feel blessed to have found this site and it seems I have been watching Dr Flowers’ videos nonstop ever since. One thing it has caused me to do is wonder about pastors I have been listening to. One is Dr. David Jeremiah, who I have listened to for many years and never heard a position on Calvinism that I am learned enough to have understood prior to listening to Dr. Flowers. Does anyone know what Dr. Jeremiah’s position is on 5-Point Calvinism (TULIP)? Thanks in advance for any help.
Hello Cliff and welcome
Thank you for your kind words!
We all feel the same degree of gratitude concerning Dr. Flower’s ministry.
On your question – I’ve personally asked the same thing.
And you can find people on Baptist forums asking the same question.
I think its fair to say Dr. Jeremiah is careful to not use language that distinguishes a position one way or the other.
Since the underlying and core foundation of Calvinism is UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM, that would be what one would be looking for – as an indicator.
Blessings!
Thank you for the response! That seems to be what I found as well during my internet search. I am excited about this site and look forward to reading Dr. Flowers books. Have a blessed day!
And you also Cliff!
May the Lord continue to bless you and give you further insights! :-]
MAKING CALVINISM’S TULIP MORE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
“U” Unconditional Destiny by Design:
Every aspect of man’s design and destiny is in total-abject-absolute unconditional subjection to an external divine and secret will. Nothing about man’s past, present, or future is ever up to any man. And nothing about man’s design or destiny is conditioned upon anything having to do with man.
“L” Limited Possibilities and Human Illusions:
All human impulses, perceptions, choices, and desires are exclusively predetermined for each human at the foundation of the world. And any perception of multiple options available for a human to choose from, exist only as divinely predestined human illusions. Illusions of non-predestined events, which as such never had any possibility of ever coming to pass, at pain of falsifying what was predestined.
“I” Irresistible Human Functionality:
All human functionality, including morally significant functionality, is produced by impulses infallibly actualized within the human brain which occur as irresistible.
“P” Possibility of Election:
Any human certainty of election in this lifetime is a predestined illusion. Each believer is promised only the possibility of election. The vast majority of the human race (including believers) are specifically created and designed for eternal torment for his good pleasure.
Dr Flowers
I have listened to many of your presentations and find myself largely in agreement, but just yesterday I had a troubling thought, as I was praying. I have much to be thankful for, and I thank God for all of them, but is God the one who is responsible for all of them, or have I made good choices in life that have led to some of these blessings? I don’t want to be like the guy who prayed I am thankful I’m not like the guy over there, but don’t I make choices that affect my health? Didn’t I choose who I married and where I went to college? In what way do I share responsibility for the things I than God for?
Maybe I will hear you comment on this in some future broadcast.
RC
Hello Ron and welcome,
Dr Flowers – due to his schedule – is not here very often to interact with posters.
You may more readily find him on Face Book if you are an FB user.
But I will pass on your question to him.
Your question – if you don’t mind me making a comment – does presuppose a Calvinistic model – in that it presupposes all human functionality as FIXED in the past by divine decree – and therefore does not originate from the human – but rather from a divine external mind.
If seems to me – if we remove that Calvinistic lens – then we don’t have that conundrum.
In such case – you would be the author of your own choices.
It would be a world in which God does leave *SOME* decisions UP TO you.
And in such a world – He could hold you accountable for those decisions that he grants to be solely UP TO you.
Sincere blessings!
br.d
Thank you, BM. Actually, I intended to assume the non-Calvinistic position to ask why I should be thankful, if my own good decisions are responsible. I am thankful for the favorable conditions I am in that are outside of my control, like a sound mind, good upbringing, and the generally Christian culture in which I grew up. All those made my good decisions easier to make.
Excellent thoughts!!!
I totally agree!
We are blessed to have such a loving Father and a wonderful savior! :-]
Thanks
Hello! Could anyone, please, help me to understand something that’s really making me feel upset? Here it is: Why would anyone not accept Jesus salvation to eternal life? I don’t understand why some people just don’t accept the Truth and some others do since God made possible for everyone to believe in Him. I know that the main problem is in the heart, but why? Why does the heart of some people do not accept Jesus? I’m not getting this. I say that because it is so obvious that we must accept Jesus. I also know that sin is the main reason, but how that happens? Why a person choose sin if this person many times knows that it will led her to death? Thank you everyone for this great blog! God bless everyone!
Hello Humberto and welcome
There are two answers to that question.
The Calvinist answer – is that Calvin’s god – determines EVERY impulse that will come to pass within the human brain.
For the Calvinist – he is a divine potter – who DESIGNS the majority of humans specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
The NON-Calvinist answer is stated by Dr. Alvin Plantinga
-quote
A world containing significantly free creatures is more valuable than a world containing no free creatures at all. God can create free creatures. But even an omnipotent God can’t CAUSE free creatures to only do what is right. If he did, then they wouldn’t be significantly free.
Thus, in creating creatures capable of moral good, God must create creatures capable of moral evil. When these creatures misuse their freedom, evil and suffering result. This fact does not count against God’s goodness or power, however, since God could prevent the occurrence of moral evil only by preventing the possibility of moral good.
BRDMOD, thank you a lot for taking a time to answer me! God bless you!
You’re very welcome Humberto!!
And the Lord bless you also!!
You and yours – be well :-]
I tend to think that it’s just because we are an impatient people, and most of us want immediate gratification. How many times did the Israelites turn to worshiping idols? Even when Moses went up to receive the tablets with the ten commandments, by the time he came back down the Israelites had created a golden calf to worship. We have an innate desire to worship, and we will worship whatever shiny thing comes along, including ourselves. Once we’ve started worshiping ourselves, it’s really difficult to give that up for the true worship of the Holy God.
The will of man is merely an expression of the human heart. It’s not autonomous but is tied to the state of the heart. If the will expressed anything other than the nature of man, man would not be at all responsible for its expression. But as it is, the Hebrew would have one word for heart, will, and mind. What the heart is so is the will and so the mind is. That’s why one cannot will to be a cat or cow. It’s not in their nature to be. They are not autonomous to be so. But also, that the will is an expression of the heart means that a desperately wicked and sick heart is a desperately wicked and sick will, unfree and unable at all to cure itself. No autonomy there, no freedom (unless we define freedom as continual evil and sickness). Lastly, I think one must distinguish between voluntary choice (choice without external coarcion) from autonomy. Otherwise we may engage in straw-man fallacy.
Hello Joseph and welcome
Joseph
The will of man is merely an expression of the human heart.
br.d
On Calvinism – this statement is a way to obfuscate the WHOLE truth.
In Calvinism – the state of nature – at any instance in time – is 100% determined before man exists.
And that includes the state of man’s nature – at any instance in time.
ZERO% is left UN-determined
Which leaves ZERO% left over for any man to determine
Therefore nothing about man’s state of nature (or anything for that matter) is ever UP TO any man.
Joseph
It’s not autonomous but is tied to the state of the heart.
br.d
In Calvinism – it is neither autonomous-from or independent-of the infallible decree
Man’s being and functionality is in total abject subjection to the infallible decree
No decree for any specific impulse in the human brain – equals no impulse in the human brain.
Joseph
No autonomy there, no freedom (unless we define freedom as continual evil and sickness).
br.d
In Calvinism – man is ONLY free to be/do what is infallibly decreed
No alternative from the infallible decree is ever permitted
The infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.
Joseph
Lastly, I think one must distinguish between voluntary choice (choice without external coarcion) from autonomy. Otherwise we may engage in straw-man fallacy.
br.d
Is it logically possible for you to volunteer something that is not UP TO you to volunteer?
I would like to take a ride on air-force one – can you volunteer air-force one for me?
Since in Calvinism – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined solely and exclusively by infallible decrees
And since ZERO% is left UNdetermined
And since that leaves ZERO% left over for any man to determine
Then it LOGICALLY follows – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is UP TO the divine will
Which leaves ZERO% left over – to be UP TO any man – including man’s will.
And you cannot volunteer that which is not UP TO you to volunteer
Therefore in Calvinism there is no such thing as man volunteering anything.
Blessings!
Wow! Somebody has a hard time talking like a normal person.
That’s an understandable response.
Universal Divine Causal Determinism – is not a normal belief system.
Calvinism is so blatantly wrong that I feel it’s pointless to go back and forth quoting scriptures & demonstrating how illogical it is.
It’s like arguing with Catholics about Mary or the other countless secret special doctrines those of weak faith use to prove they’re enlightened. They’re resisting the Holy Spirit – that’s where the battle lies. They need to be taught to dig deep into why they refuse to accept the Simplicity of Christ. Why their pathetic side doctrine dominates their lives instead of Jesus Christ. Why their lives are filled with the Lust of spewing their shocking error all over their brothers so they can set up another winner takes all argument.
This is the path. Proclaim Truth & let it stand. By trading scriptures & points of Logic forever , we are feeding their lust with precisely what their sick souls crave.
Thank you James
I do agree with most of what you observe.
However I am also pursued these are people whose minds have wittingly become captured.
There is a consistence mental characteristic of Calvinists which follows a constituent pattern.
The ones who escape from it tend to be those who desire truth above its mental safety blanket and its hierarchy of respected persons
You said – “Thus, I had been lead to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” I find it incredible that you have such a limited view of God that you miss His unlimited overview and overseeing of His creation. I believe you are missing the true endless and infinite greatness of God in that you fail to realize His true unlimited oversight of all of His creation, in that you conceive Him as so limited that He (Who created time along with space and the universe and is therefore not in any way limited by His creation), is in some way limited, or controlled by that which He created. By this I mean that the God/Creator Who created time is not in any way limited or controlled by time – which is itself only one of His creations. God is so far outside of His creation that He is able to see all of time at once and interact to a level far above that which our limited imaginations can grasp.
I’m puzzled that anyone who truly believes in the limitless creating God cannot grasp that His power is limitless and He can do anything He desires within and without His creation. The supposedly “strange concept of God looking through the corridors of time” ought not to be strange at all to any that believe in an unlimited Creator God. In fact that man-conceived concept itself comes from a limited understanding of the greatness and power and the superiority of His creation and His control over that creation.
I have only ever and believed in a truly Wonderfully unlimited and limitless creative God Who is truly in total control of His creation, yet so much in control that He is able to allow free-will without losing sovereignty. This Almighty Creator is able to not “struggle to look through the corridors of time”, but to see and control any part of His creation at any time without limit. Thus He quite obviously, (to me), can foresee, (not through any limiting time corridor, but directly), those that will believe and choose them as His own people. It is only from our perspective that we understand it as fore-seeing what is to happen from our limited experience.
Hello colnunn1 and welcome
Welcome Colnunn1. You have said a number of good things. I think you might want to consider again the idea of what God’s sees as it relates to creation’s past, it’s present, and it’s future… and also reconsider that when the Scripture says God “foreknows” something, it is from His perspective, not just mans’, for Scripture is His Word. So, I agree that God did not look/is not looking down any “corridor of time”, for no such corridor exists, and the past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. God’s Word describes the future as partly determined already in His mind, and partly to be determined by His cause or permission from possibilities that still exist in His mind.
brianwagner,
Thank you for your comment. I understand what you say, but I believe that God cannot be limited in any way by our understanding which is very limited by our earthly personal experience. We tend to judge God Himself by our limitations and our human inabilities. I suppose wrongly, that if I cannot know the future, then it seems obvious to me that God cannot. If the past is dead and gone to me, I think that then it must be past to God too. But is this necessarily true? We have a very tiny grasp of the nature of the unlimited infinite God and ought not to confine Him in our thinking to those limits to which we ourselves are confined. We need to have a view of God that gives to Him all possibilities in regard to His existence. He speaks to us in ways that recognize our limited experience and abilities and thus His descriptions of future and past etcetera such that we can understand.
If God is as limited as you suggest, then we can have no faith that the future can be determined nor can we be sure that our own futures can be assured. We fall back into the Calvinist situation in that we cannot be sure of our salvation since God Himself cannot be sure. God is as limited in your scenario and we are no better off than are those under Calvinism.
I believe we have to get our minds around the Creator that is truly unlimited in all ways in spite of our inability to grasp that possibility. He is superbly infinite even though this concept is out of our grasp and is hard to even imagine the consequent outworking. Otherwise we are unsure and can only be unsure of any real future, and thus cannot rest in faith. To answer this by simply saying that we have to trust this limited God to bring good out of evil is to trust in a God Who does not know what is going to happen.
Whereas the God that the Bible speaks to me about, knows it all and knows how to work all things together for good to those that love Him and can do so in ways that we cannot imagine. He is able to place people into time such that the right people come across the correspondingly right people because He is in charge of time in ways that are beyond us.
I trust in such a God – a Creator who is truly unlimited, and therefore I know that all will be well.
Thank you colnunn1 for your thoughtful reply. I don’t believe my words have limited God. I’m saying His Word accurately reveals the truth about His reality, which is the only reality. When He speaks in His Word of the past as past, that is what it is to Him. When He speaks of the future as future, with some things already unconditionally set to happen and others which can still be changed, that is the truth about the future in His mind.
Here are some verses that might help.
Verses – future is not completely set in God’s foreknowledge.
Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam 👉to see👈 what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, 👉that I may know👈 what to do to you.’ ”
Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and 👉devising a plan👈 against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And 👉pray that your flight may not be in winter👈 or on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, 👉if it is possible👈, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
God’s mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It’s not locked in right now to seeing everything as “will be” or “is”. God’s foreknowledge is dynamic and includes also the truth about what “might be” or “might not be”.
1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?
3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.
4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples’ prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem’s fall, indicating Jesus’ believed it might not yet be set?
5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God’s will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?
The answer is an obvious “yes” to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don’t clearly show those self evident implications it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.
********
The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God’s mind in His knowing a “before” that then becomes known as an “after” and a “might be” that then becomes known as either a “will be” or a “could have been”.
Calvinism rejects that such change in God’s mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of “before” creation means “before” and illogically accepts that changes in God’s mind exist and don’t exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God’s mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.
Only Dynamic Omniscience offers the idea that God’s mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as “will be” was known only as “will be” in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as “fulfilled”. Those declared as “might be” are only known as “might be”. He will freely choose to cause or permit one “might be” to change in His mind to a “will be” and another “might be” into a “won’t be/could have been”.
The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a lie… or that changes happening in God’s mind is imperfection is also a lie. God’s Word counters clearly those lies. And God’s mind cannot believe lies as truths.
Brian Wagner,
1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
Not at all. Though I am not a Hebrew student, I always see this as a Hebrew (or Aramaic perhaps?) expression that simply says that God brought the animals to Adam and Eve to allow them the pleasure of attaching names that they felt suited the animals. It was the particular vernacular way of expression of that culture. The same goes for questions 2 and 3.
As for Jesus, He was limited in His knowledge by the fact that He took upon Him human nature with its limitations and therefore throughout His earthly life He relied upon His Father to guide Him in all that He did and said – as a human must. He couldn’t for instance tell His disciples what was to happen in the last days, but stated that only the Father knew of those specific things.
Isn’t it possible that God speaks down to us in a sense, in that He communicates to us in a way that we can grasp by using such mental representations? To believe that God changes His mind is to be unsure of Him and opens us up to all and any possibilities.
When God suggested that He was going to disown the nation of Israel and replace them with the nation of Moses, do we really believe that He was going to do so, or did He know that Moses would defend them and beg for mercy for them and thus allow Him to have mercy on them? God knows us such that He knows our every plan, thought and motive. He was not surprised that Moses prayed for his people and ‘tried’ Moses in a way that was not questioning Moses, but by which His own plan was implemented.
Genesis chapter 1 speaks of God’s creating the world in six days. Each day’s description says that ‘God saw that it was good’ The concepts you espouse suggest that God’s creation might have been bad according to your way of interpreting the Word. God must have been unsure as to whether the creation was going to turn out to be ‘good’ or not.
Genesis 3 tells of God asking “Where are you?” when Adam hid from Him. Do you really think that He could not know where they were? Is He that limited?
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother?” – also “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” Did God not know what Cain had done? Of course He did. That’s why He asked Cain where Abel was – in order to reveal the crime.
Gen 9:14-16 “When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember ny covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature os all flesh that is on the earth.”
According to your way of interpreting God’s Word, God really would need to be reminded of His covenant, but you and I know that God intended the rainbow as a sign for mankind, not as a reminder for His own forgetful mind. His words in so many scriptures are not meant to be taken quite so literally as to mean exactly what the words could mean.
“Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”
Why did The Lord have to come down to see what was happening in Sodom? Could He not see from the Heavens? This scripture could also be seen to limit God if taken literally. Did He not come down in order to tell us of important things about Himself such as His awareness of all that happens on the earth, and His determination to judge wrong etc. Surely this passage does not prove that God is limited and cannot see what is happening on earth from His position on high?
Is He so changeable that these events are uncertain and that our lives as a consequence are also uncertain, or does He speak into our lives in such a way that we can be sure of our standing with Him? We need to believe in a Creator that actually can have it all planned out yet in such a way that men can actually make free-will decisions, yet He still being capable of working circumstances and men’s decisions into His over-all will. We limit Him by saying “No, He can’t do that” because our minds and imaginations are unable to grasp that possibility.
Remember that God created the universe which includes the whole of space, time and matter. Time is tied up with matter and space such that time itself is a part of the creation. Time itself is able to be altered as matter approaches huge speeds, so therefore time is not something that simply existed before God Himself, nor is it something that controls or limits God or His powers. His sovereignty is real sovereignty that by the way allows us free-will. yet He remains in control in ways that we cannot imagine. Time cannot limit its Creator.
Thank you again colnunn1 for your thoughtful reply. I will take God at His Word and not believe He is speaking “down” to us in it, so that “scholars” can tell us what He really meant, even the opposite of what was said. I don’t know if I can convince you that you have chosen some other passages as straw men, which I never pointed to… like God asking questions for which He knew the answer, or using the word “remember” which in Hebrew includes the fulfillment of a promise in its meaning.
But yes, God was serious in the conditional plan He had in mind for Moses, in rebuilding Israel through him. Why should we doubt God being serious and truthful in His warnings? Though we can assume there might be conditions in them, whether they will be fulfilled or not. That is why they are warnings.
As for Gen 18, 21 –
The Sodom story is not the best text to try to teach a partly open future in my view , but it does confirm God’s knowledge, at least His experiential knowledge, changes. Gen 18:20-21 NKJV – And the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
For verse 21 – אֵֽרֲדָה־נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי עָשׂוּ כָּלָה וְאִם־לֹא אֵדָֽעָה׃ – God is saying literally – “Let me please go down, and let me see the-according-to-outcry-of-her, (which) entered to me, (if) they did a full end, and if not I will know.”
The key words are “a full end”. I think God, already knowing exactly how bad things are by His omniscience (from a distance but still accurate), and knowing any and all possibilities that might remain for the slim chance of repentance of some and the saving of the whole city based on those few responding the right way, wants to present the city with a final personal confrontation (visit) to see (experience) if those few will freely repent, or after seeing (experiencing) their rejection is at “a full end” personally, He will then “know by experience” that judgment is necessary.
God is not changeble in His life, love, truth, and righteousness… but according to His Word He can and does change in various ways, and is still making decisions between available possibilities. Of course if He makes an unconditional promise, by His omnipotence He will bring it about, no matter what unchosen possibilities still remain known just as possibilities in His mind. He is perfect, which means He is not locked in and limited to knowing the future as working out only one way.
As for time – consider this – Ps 90, 2 Sequential Reality
There are two definitions for “time”. One is connected only to creation… it is the measurement of matter in motion. The other is connected to reality which is from God’s nature.
Reality consists of sequential events… befores and afters, coming out of the infinite past and going forwards infinitely. His eternality is described clearly – “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps 90:2)… “who was and is and is to come” (Rev 4:8). There were events of communication, relationship, and decision making in the Godhead before creation of space and matter… right?
The premise that reality is both sequential and non-sequential for God at the same “time” is a logical contradiction borrowed into Christianity from neo-platonism. The Scripture gives no other “competing” reality for God’s presence, than the sequential one, and a competing reality would be contradictory to the word “reality” anyway.
His foreknowledge is dynamic therefore, each time He makes a decision His knowing goes from “will happen” to “has happened”. It is not static. His understanding is infinite (Ps 147:5). He knows all the possibilities that still exist to decide upon, to cause one or permit another, and He knows all things that are already determined by Him that limit those possibilities.
***********
Some like the illustration of God as in a blimp watching the full parade below. But for a sight from a blimp to watch a parade, the full parade has to exist. The future does not exist as a completed entity to watch, either as a place to see or as a finished story in God’s mind.
Reality is only sequential, and comes from God’s eternal nature. His eternality is described clearly – “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps 90:2), “who was and is and is to come” (Rev 4:8). Relationship and communication in the Godhead existed before creation and were sequential (with befores and afters).
The underlying important issue is – Does God’s mind reflect univocally the sequential reality of His Word, or have scholars discovered in their philosophical reasoning that God hid from Scripture His perspective of a non-sequential reality? This philosophical reasoning would be a perspective that also makes man’s normal perspective in Scripture actually faulty, for Scripture reveals the future as not yet existing, but in these scholars’ “reality” it is already existing as completed (forever). But God’s reality as revealed in Scripture is the only true one.
Thank you for sharing this! It was very enlightening and informative! You very eloquently stated many things that brought home points of Calvinism that I always disagreed with or questioned.
Welcome Katherine! I’m glad you were encouraged by Leighton’s testimony!
Hello Katherine and welcome
You sharing how you left Calvinism reminds me of my experience doing the same. I had appreciated growing while part of a Calvary Chapel in Orange County. I assisted in youth ministry. Some of the young people started being influenced by ‘CURE’ and really started preaching Calvinism around. It kind of led me to check it out. I too was greatly impacted by RC Sproul and some others. But then it was some things that RC Sproul said and wrote that eventually led me to close the book on Calvinism. Total Depravity did my head in from the start. Being dead in my sins being compared to me being dead in a casket having complete inability to believe unless God regenerated me so I could believe just never set well in my mind. Dave Hunt writing about the other side of Unconditional Election (Damnation) also helped me. But it was when RC Sproul talked about the prodigal son coming to himself being regeneration, and then when he made fun of those who say they have ‘received Jesus’ is when I ‘closed’ that book. I’m glad I did.
Hello Mark and welcome!
Your testimony is appreciated!
And on the subject of Total Depravity – I think you will eventually find it is used as a smoke-screen to obfuscate the underlying doctrine of decrees – which stipulates that nature (including man’s nature) at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined at the foundation of the world.
Total Depravity in Calvinism thus serves as a lie of omission.
A lie of omission occurs when a statement is designed to mislead – by virtue of omitting critical facts – which if not omitted would not mislead.
The critical fact omitted in Calvinism’s presentation of Total Depravity is the fact that man’s nature – at every nano-second in time is 100% meticulously predestined. And that which is predestined cannot be other than what it is predestined to be.
Total Depravity in Calvinism is used to FALSELY attribute man’s eternal destiny and man’s sinful nature – to man’s condition – when the TRUTH is – both man’s eternal destiny – and every nano-second of man’s nature is AUTHORED by divine decree.
The Calvinist knows that people are going to reject Calvinism – if they are told the truth.
So Calvinism uses Total Depravity as a way of evading telling the truth.
Blessings!
br.d
Welcome NTEB – what was a major influence that began your turning away from Calvinism. Here is what I’ve read from others.
13 Reasons People Begin to Rethink and Leave Calvinism that I have read.
1. Some became willing to test again each of the arguments of Calvinism that they presumed were true only because of the men (books, podcasts) they respected, who had taught them those premises. They approached them anew for themselves, and from the perspective of a debater who must force themselves to take the other side and to try to see the strongest legitimate arguments for that other perspective.
2. Some of those had started reading through the whole Bible and noting that the tenor of the majority of Scriptures was plainly teaching the opposite of what the few favorite Calvinistic proof texts seem to teach.
3. Some started looking back on their life and became convinced in their heart and mind by the HS that they could have done differently at times. They knew this thinking clearly rejects what their deterministic theology says about everything happening in a predestined way.
4. Some started to sincerely listen to good testimonies of former Calvinists and the sound arguments from Scripture that began then to convince them what the HS had been nudging them to reject all along in the harmful doctrines of Calvinism.
5. Some started wondering, after having children of their own, how their love for each of their children, even wayward ones, could be any more than God’s for all of His “children” by creation. How could He not give them all sufficient opportunity to seek His mercy and grace? This led them to recheck the underlying teaching and alternative teachings to predestination of a limited elect.
6. Some started seeing the unspiritual responses of some who professed Calvinism, like calling it the “gospel”, or those in leadership being oppressive, plus seeing some other reformed teachings that they felt the Scripture didn’t support, all of which caused them to research the points of Calvinism more in depth and that study led them to reject Calvinism.
7. Some started seeing that attributing their own failures/sins to God’s predestination and not accepting personal responsibility for them was a reaction from fleshly pride. They decided to reevaluate the theology that taught them all was predestined to work out only one way. Studying graciously presented teachings contrary to that idea of predestination helped them reject Calvinism.
Here’s part of one specific testimony – “I began to become very disillusioned with what I now call theological determinism, as it was having a significant impact on my prayer life and ambivalence towards my sanctification. I could not shake these questions from my mind. Why pray when everything is already determined? Why struggle against sin when God ‘clearly’ determined me to have these thorns in the flesh? Why evangelize when the Elect will come to faith no matter what?”
“As someone who has a very logical mind, after years of believing Calvinism, I came to realize the logically consistent conclusions of these doctrines and I hated what it was doing to my walk with the Lord. Even though I knew Scripture described God as loving, merciful, and slow to anger, my Calvinistic cognitive dissonance screamed otherwise. As if the Lord knew my heart and desired to help me understand the truth, I stumbled upon Leighton Flowers and Soteriology 101.”
8. Some researched the Servetus affair and became alarmed by the defense and revision provided by Calvin and Calvinists for such an un-Christian response against heresy. They became willing to research opposing explanations of Romans 9 and other passages, leading them to reject Calvinism.
9. Some saw the hardening effect the teaching of Calvinism was having on their children… producing a fear of God but not a love for God or for the lost. They then prayerfully read through Scriptures and saw more clearly God’s universal love, leading them to reject Calvinism’s view that God eternally hates most people.
10. Some began reading writings from early Christian history which sounded nothing like Calvinism and even sounded condemnatory to what looks like it.
11. Some didn’t get satisfactory answers to the questions that plagued them. Listen to this personal testimony:
“They couldn’t answer my questions. For me there’s a point where you think they just don’t want to. Then you graduate to – they just can’t be bothered. Then you graduate to the realization that it’s not that they won’t; it’s that they can’t. Then you either accept the incoherence for whatever reason or you roll up your metaphysical sleeves and get to work finding a system that is more coherent.”
12. Some began to rethink why they should be forced to think God is less merciful. Listen to this personal testimony:
“Seriously though, the thing that really got me rethinking Calvinism was a quote I saw on twitter…: ‘Calvinism has taught the church that we should all be shocked that God would show mercy to even one unworthy sinner, but anyone knowing Jesus and His selfless sacrifice on the cross should be shocked that God would refuse to show mercy to even one unworthy sinner!’
…I couldn’t think of anything to say right then so I just went on about my day and forgot about it. That night I was trying to fall asleep and pulled back open twitter and my message box was still open waiting for me to reply… I remember thinking to myself, ‘Why do we (Calvinists) work so hard to try and make people think it should shock us that God would be merciful to as few people as we can imagine….’
That question ran through my mind for a good week and I just kept trying to ignore it by telling myself, “My flesh is trying to take glory from God by claiming it for myself.” But deep down I knew that wasn’t my root motive in asking that question. My motive was that I really wanted to highlight God’s love for everyone and his genuine desire for their salvation. Deep down I wanted for God to be more loving and desirous of others salvation than I am. I know that my heart’s desire for my sister and many of my close friends that remain lost is for them to believe and be saved and I wanted to believe that God really wants that too. I knew that consistent Calvinism doesn’t allow for that and that was my struggle.
So, that’s when I went back and read… articles about how defending free will is actually more about defending God’s holiness and something just kind of clicked.”
13. Some felt deceptive during evangelism trying to answer sincere questions about how God felt about the specific sinner in front of them. Listen to this personal testimony:
“It was not until I left Calvinism that I was able to share the Gospel without measuring my words or evading questions…. I was struggling to express the most plain Biblical truths all because I didn’t want to violate Calvinism. It is a terrible feeling to be sharing the Gospel, and at the same time hoping the hearer doesn’t ask you too much about it. I have shared the Gospel on the corner and had the fellas ask questions like the one below:
‘Man Jay, I have done so much dirt. You think God wants to save me’?
In my heart i want to just blurt out YES! But instead, I am thinking ‘I wish he said save ‘someone like me’; then I could technically say ‘Yes’. Instead I respond: ‘It doesn’t matter what you’ve done. That won’t stop God from saving you.’ Now I feel dirty because he’s trying to make it personal and I’m trying to make it general. He thinks I am talking about him (which is what I want him to think). The truth is I’m talking about the concept (technically a person’s sin doesn’t stop God from saving them). The man wants hope for salvation and I’m scared to give it to him because I don’t want to violate the GOSPEL! Lord forgive me.”
Tim…” it seems to lesson His glory”. should be lessen not lesson
br.d
Thank you Barry!
Point well taken!
Sincere thanks!
Thank you for this. I have never been a Calvinist, and am appalled at what it represents: man’s wisdom. Just like the Pharisees who had their fancy theological terms–corban–so it is with Calvinism–and with Arminianism–and with Pentecostalism–and with Cessationism–and with Catholicism–and with Evangelicalism (aka the “seeker friendly movement that emphasizes evangelism above all else)–and with Orthodoxy–and with Anabaptism–and with the “grammatico-historical hermeneutic” which is used to explain away headcoverings and other aspects of God’s will which He has plainly stated. All of these share the same thing: relying on man’s wisdom rather than the Scriptures. The Church is overrun with winds of doctrine! We need a revival by the power of God.
br.d
Thank you Tom!
Yes – and the more one discovers about the *RADICAL* nature of Calvinism’s doctrine – the more one becomes alarmed.
The *RADICAL* nature is such – that it tempts Calvinist leaders/teachers into various degrees of dishonesty.
.
Consequently – There is currently a very high prevalence of what is called *STEALTH* Calvinism.
And it is well recognized by those who are aware – that Calvinism is heavily reliant upon a *CLOAKED* language where statements are designed to present an *APPEARANCE* of things the Calvinist calculates people will find attractive – but which do not actually exist within the doctrine.
.
The dishonesty we observe is predominately due to the Calvinist lying to himself in order to accommodate the doctrine.
He has no overt cognitive desire to deceive people
.
But the lies that he tells himself – in order to accommodate the doctrine within himself – he will naturally tell to others.
In order to get others to embrace the doctrine – he must get them to embrace those lies which have become necessary to accommodate it.
.
Indicators of dishonesty speak clearly – that we are dealing with something *HUMAN* rather than divine.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Thank you for your informative article on Calvinism Dr Leighton. I have a question for 5-point Calvinists. If an infant who is not one of the Elect dies, does God send that baby to hell? I would think not.
Welcome Karen! Calvinists disagree on that one. Some say all babies who die are elect, others say only elect babies who die go to heaven, and a few give the view that children of reformed families are all elect when baptized into the covenant as infants.
Here’s my view – Age of Accountability – Here’s my take –
NO GUILT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF LAW:
Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
AN INFANT’S CONSCIENCE IS NOT CONSCIOUS OF THE LAW:
Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Jonah 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and [also] much cattle?
BIBLICAL EXAMPLES OF ASSURANCE OF INFANT SALVATION:
DAVID of his son by Bathsheba
2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. (But seemingly not of Absalom, cp. 2 Samuel 18:33)
GOD of the infants offered to Molech
Ezekiel 16:21 That thou hast slain My children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through [the fire] for them?
JESUS of the children praising Him during His Triumphal Entry in Jerusalem
Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
PAUL of his own experience as an infant
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
This last verse seems the strongest because it is in a theological passage about sin and salvation. Paul was “alive” physically without the law, i.e. the law’s convicting presence in his life. When the commandment came to his awakened conscience at his age of accountability, sin, which was lying previously dormant and unable to bring a sentence of guilt upon his soul, now comes alive and Paul dies, not physically, but spiritually, i.e. he becomes guilty before God, having agreed with Adam by his own willful sin against God. Presumably, if Paul had died before that moment, he would have died in personal innocence. But more than innocence is needed to approach God. His imputed righteousness is required. Ultimately, this disputable matter needs to be left in the hands of God.
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Genesis 18:25
I posted on another thread, but this question in particular seems more appropriate to what I was thinking about. How can Calvinists logically be anti-abortion? After all, in Calvinist doctrine, God is the original abortionist. He spiritually aborted his own progeny, those made in his image and likeness, before they were ever conceived. And apparently, he did it to display his own glory in some way. How, then, can Calvinists condemn abortion for convenience, fame, or any other reason?
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to justify abortion in any way. I’m wondering how they (at least some of them) can justify being anti-abortion?
Hi Pamela, In Calvinism believing God can do immoral things that He commands us not to do is not a problem, because they believe if God does it, it’s therefore but immoral, even if He says it is in His Word. They defend this cognitive dissonance and it’s hard to overcome.
Pamela,
Without pausing to rectify the misapprehensions you have expressed about Calvinism, let’s reduce the logic of your question to its foundational assumption: namely, that a person cannot logically be anti- anything if that thing has been done by God.
Based on that assumption, we might ask: How can you be against murder when God killed many people in Scrioture (Nadab and Abihu, for example)? Can you see the fatal flaw in the logic you presented? (Pun intended)
One of the reasons people balk against clear teachings of Scripture that—when rightly interpreted in context with sound exegesis and historical background—necessitate a fundamentally Calvinistic conclusion, is that they assume false things about God (often, that He is like us) and place themselves squarely on the playing field in opposition to Him, as if to correct Him, and by failing to recognize His utter transcendence and holy glory, and otherness, they seek to bring His lofty thoughts down into inadequate human-brain-sized containers. God is the giver of life and He can freely take it. We are not that and we cannot do that. OTOH, the moment we surrender to the exalted majesty of God’s infinite wisdom and stop thinking in this self-aggrandizing and reductive way, the door is suddenly opened for us to grab hold of the ultimately uncontainable yet perfectly balanced and beautifully crafted message of God’s Bible, by faith and not by reduction—most likely leading to something along the lines of Augustinian or Calvinistic/Reformed thought. As an example, look at the way such faith has radically transformed and humbled the brilliant mind of former atheist Guillaume Bignon. Or for that matter Augustine himself. Have you read the Confessions?
Hello Derek and welcome
.
Derek:
As an example, look at the way such faith has radically transformed and humbled the brilliant mind of former atheist Guillaume Bignon. Or for that matter Augustine himself. Have you read the Confessions?
.
br.d
It is critical to not forget – Calvinism’s doctrine stipulates that a human ( which obviously includes Guillaume Bignon, Augustine, and yourself) cannot have an impulse in your brain which you can call your own.
.
Every impulse is FIRST CONCEIVED within the mind of a THEOS at the foundation of the world.
And them *MADE* to infallibly (and thus irresistibly) come to pass within the human brain.
.
Additionally – an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
Consequently:
1) If it is decreed that you or Augustine or Guillaume Bignon will have a FALSE perception or FALSE belief
That decree is infallible – and does not grant the existence of any ALTERNATIVE perception or belief within that brain.
.
2) As long as that decree is in effect – the FALSE perception/belief will “INFALLIBLY PERSEVERE”
.
3) In such case – that brain would not be permitted to discern that perception/belief as FALSE
If that brain were to discern it as FALSE – that brain would no longer HAVE that FALSE perception/belief.
Therefore the decree does not permit that brain to discern that perception/belief as FALSE
.
4) Since (1-3) are TRUE – it follows – the brain is not permitted to differentiate a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception
.
5) Since (1-3) are TRUE – it follows – the Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to know if anything it thinks is FALSE – simply because the brain is not granted the ability to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.
.
CONCLUSION:
We have here one of the consequences of Calvinism’s embrace of EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (E#DD)
It is an EPISTEMIC consequence.
Per the doctrine – the Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on the matter of anything.
.
The way the Calvinist gets around this consequence of the doctrine – is by treating his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
.
blessings
br.d
Derek, Capital punishment is not murder… Right? So divine judgment of physical death is not murder. I’m surprised you didn’t realize you were misrepresenting the truth.
But believing God decreed before creation every sin as necessary to take place in a specific way, at a specific time, makes Him the primary cause of every sin. Denial doesn’t get rid of that logical conclusion, which clearly slanders His righteous character. And denial of that slander doesn’t get rid of that logical conclusion either.
And for some reason you’d rather be loyal to man-made theology than to God’s Word which has no clear verse about such a decree, but has many clear verses that contradict that premise.
Brian,
You are right, capital punishment is not murder, but the justified killing of a criminal by another human being. God has openly decreed, in Scripture, the death of all humans (regardless of whether they deserve capital punishment, from a human standpoint), and He has often demonstrated His right to take such action, which would NOT be justified if committed by a mere human being. So you have proved my point (thank you?). As an example, God killed everyone other than Noah’s family in the flood. Nevertheless, Noah did not have a right to kill any of those people and would have been guilty of murder if he had unjustifiably taken their lives, though God Himself was about to kill every one of them in the flood. Again, you have succeeded in illustrating my exact point, which is that God’s prerogatives and actions are different than man’s. With that foundation now well established, we can also reasonably conclude that such a glorious and transcendent God is able to decree an event without being culpable or guilty in the slightest way for any evil associated with the event through human or angelic/demonic agency. Precistly how that works remains a mystery for Him to understand and for us to accept (if we are willing to take Him at His Word). For a good Biblical case regarding God’s eternal decrees and a direct counter to your supposition that there is “no clear verse,” I would highly recommend reviewing the verses and explanations offered in this helpful article:
PS – The third sentence and last paragraph in your comment seem a bit uncharitable, no? I do not usually find your rhetoric to be so laden with the ad-hominem attack. But you know what they say, when a person lacks a good argument they have nothing left but to turn their cannons “against the man.” However, everything you said about me WAS TRUE before by the grace and mercy of God I submitted my heart and mind to His Word, which then led me inevitably to become a Biblically-focused type of Calvinist. So you were not entirely wrong, just off on the timing.
Blessings!
Derek
br.d
Derek – please be advised – per SOT101 policy – we do not allow links to other web-sites to be added to posts.
You probably didn’t know – so I’ll just go ahead and delete that link
.
Derek
God is able to decree an event without being culpable or guilty in the slightest way for any evil associated with the event through human or angelic/demonic agency.
.
br.d
We’re very familiar with self contradictions and magical thinking.
.
Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world AUTHORS everything which comes to pass.
.
But not in such a way that Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world is the AUTHOR of everything that comes to pass. :-]
I’m not sure, Derek, why you think my evaluation of your loyalty is an ad hominem. The facts speak for themselves. Since you couldn’t post the link, just post the verses that you think prove I was wrong about there being no clear verses about a divine decree that predeterimined everything before creation to work out only one way, including every sin.
If you would like me to give you a number of clear verses that prove God made determinations for some things after creation, contradicting the premise that you are more loyal to, let me know.
We are in agreement God and man can end physical lives in accordance with what is Just. And of course God as creator is just to directly or allow indirectly the ending of physical lives, which humans would not be justified in ending.
But you cannot logically state that proves God is just, according to His definition of righteousness, to create persons predestined to sin every sin they will sin, including their rejection of Him, as well as decreeing they have no ability to seek Him or His mercy, and then torment them forever in hell for rejecting Him! And yet He said clearly He wants all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth!
Derek,
Interesting the way you think.
Did David murder Goliath?
Then you have war when the Israelis would kill in battle… is that murder?
Then you have where God told King Saul to kill…but he left alive someone very important, and God was not happy about that. Samuel found out, and killed the dude that God wanted dead.
So did Samuel murder?
But I’m amused at your conclusion that we are not allowed to kill. I’ve encountered this with the JW’s years ago. I’m a USN Vet, and the JW’s and I go round and round with this one!
Ed Chapman
Ed, please see my careful use of the word “justifiable.” As I mentioned, capital punishment is justifiable killing. God telling someone to kill another person makes it justifiable. Self-defense or killing that happens in a just war are ostensibly justifiable. God taking a life Himself is always justified. But as I showed in the example of Noah and the flood, God’s rights and prerogatives in the taking of a life are very different than man’s. All of this was in response to Pamela’s interesting question about abortion. Calvinists are right to oppose abortion because it is the unjustified taking of a human life by man. God is just in causing the death of any person because all are fallen in Adam. Humans have a right to life, unless and until they forfeit it, but God has a right to take life just as He gave it. Do you see the difference? You’ll find no JW nonsense here 😉
Derek,
Well, you left me with a word…justifiable. WHO determines what is, or isn’t justified? You? Where is your black robe?
I’m just going to leave you with ONE WORD…GUILT.
Commons sense, Calvinists have not.
If you FEEL GUILT, you are guilty. If you don’t feel guilt, you are NOT GUILTY.
In Romans 7:7-9, Paul didn’t even know what LUST WAS, until he got aquainted with the law. He had no KNOWLEDGE that Lust was coveting! And before he got KNOWLEDGE of that, sin was DEAD, and he was ALIVE (not dead in his sins and trespasses, as you preach!)
It’s just that simple.
Someone who doesn’t know that abortion is MURDER, is not guilty of murder. They don’t even recognize the killing, let alone murder.
Have you ever read:
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
That one verse is EXTREMELY important, that your clan ignores when discussing DEATH. Why is that? You guys begin with like what, verse 12, skip over 13, and continue! Ya, I’ve seen it.
Did Abraham sleep with his sister, or not? Isn’t that a sin? A major sin? Did God give sister/brother a PROMISED SEED? Justified sin? LOL.
Did Abraham know it was a sin? If so, when? If so, why did he not stop sleeping with his sister? Why did God give bro/sis an inbred promised son? Does God INVENT sin as he goes along?
Abortion is a sin if a Christian, who has knowledge of the law, has an abortion. Until you know it’s a sin, it’s NOT imputed as a sin.
Besides, you’d think Calvinists would endorce abortion, since you guys are all about DEAD IN THE WOMB anyway!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
QUESTION:
WHO determines what is, or isn’t justified?
.
br.d
BINGO!!!!!!
.
Here is where we discover the Calvinist is functioning as the little man behind the curtain.
His God has a *VERY BIG* and *VERY POWERFUL* face.
The Bible is claimed to be his *AUTHORITY*
.
He claims – his god determines *ALL* things
He claims – the Bible demands it.
.
He presents a *VERY BIG* and *VERY POWERFUL* face
He presents is the Bible as the *AUTHORITY*
.
This strategy works – until you discover he is the one pulling all of the levers behind the curtain.
.
The little man behind the curtain – the big face (divine sovereignty) and the Bible as as smoke screen.
He claims – his god and the Bible are the *DETERMINERS*
.
But the truth is – he is the *TRUE DETERMINER*
He is the *DETERMINER* of what his god determines
He is the *DETERMINER* of how the Bible is to be perceived
.
When you discover his system is riddled with self-contradictions
The little man pulling the levers – tells you these are “inscrutabilities” and “divine mysteries” which are beyond your ability to understand
.
He is the *ALL KNOWING ONE*
You are to simply *BELIEVE EVERY WORD*
.
THE ULTIMATE CONTRADICTION:
The Calvinists’s ultimate contradiction is the fact that *IF* the Calvinist *REALLY* believed his own doctrine – he wouldn’t have to try to convince anyone of anything.
.
Because his doctrine stipulates every impulse that comes to pass within every human brain was *FIXED* by an infallible decree before humans were created – and those impulses cannot possibly be *OTHER* than what they were infallibly decreed to be.
.
I still say God gave Calvinism to mankind – as a form of entertainment! 😀
br.d,
You had said:
But the truth is – he is the *TRUE DETERMINER*
He is the *DETERMINER* of what his god determines
He is the *DETERMINER* of how the Bible is to be perceived
My response:
BINGO! That’s exactly the point I was making.
But in either case, the person is dead, and God decreed the murder at the foundation of the earth…or was it BEFORE the foundation of the earth? For his own good pleasure! The one who did the murder is just an INSTRUMENT that God used to make it happen. And instead calvin’s god decreeing the death penalty…Calvin god will spare his life in prison, with the possibility of parole in 16 years. Sounds like the Calvin god is a pagan sadistic hedonist getting his jollies off! Worship that? No way!
br.d
Yes!
.
A.A. Hodge
-quote
“Men and nations are the *MERE INSTRUMENTS* (the axe, saw, rod) in the hand of God to do his will”
(Predestination)
.
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is *IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE* in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance the *IMPULSE TO ACTION PRECEDES* from god (Systematic Theology)
.
John Calvin
-quote
He *MOVES* the wills of men (Institutes 2.4.7)
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
.
The Calvinist uses terms like “Agency” to paint a FALSE picture of human AUTONOMY.
When the truth – is the only “Agency” the creature is granted – is the “Agency” of being and doing that which is decreed.
.
Adam was:
– Not granted the option to NOT eat
– Not granted the Freedom to NOT eat
– Not granted permission to NOT eat
– Not granted the Ability to NOT eat
– Not granted the Agency to NOT eat
.
The decree grants existence to only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN impulse in Adam’s brain
Which means – in Calvinism – man has NO SAY and NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL over any impulse in his brain.
.
Both you and I are totally familiar with all of the SEMANTIC TAP-DANCE routines the Calvinist is so reliant upon to try to create the *APPEARANCE* that man is granted some kind of functionality beyond that of a puppet-robot.
.
Too funny! 😀
Derek,
Furthermore, you had said:
“God is just in causing the death of any person because all are fallen in Adam.”
My response:
You would have to buy off on “ORIGINAL SIN” to believe that. I don’t.
Derek,
God is able to decree an event without being culpable or guilty in the slightest way …..
.
br.d
This statement presupposed the Calvinist brain is granted the ability to discern [Guilty] from [NOT-Guilty].
.
Is that ability granted to the Calvinist brain?
Lets take a look:
.
1) [Guilty] and [NOT-Guilty] are CONTRARY to one another
.
2) So the process of the Calvinist brain discerning [Guilty] from [NOT-Guilty] on the matter of [X]
Would require the Calvinist brain making a choice between[Guilty] and [NOT-Guilty] on the matter of [X]
.
3) Since [Guilty] and [NOT-Guilty] are CONTRARY to each other – it follows – the Calvinist brain be required to make what Jon Edwards called a CONTRARY choice.
.
4) However – as Edwards shows – CONTRARY choice is not granted to the Calvinist brain for the following reasons
.
– Per the doctrine – Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – must make a decision about whatsoever will come to pass within the Calvinist brain – at every instance in time.
.
– If it is decreed – the Calvinist brain will perceive [X] as [Guilty] – then the option for the Calvinist brain to perceive [X] as [NOT-Guilty] would be CONTRARY to the decree – and thus not granted existence.
.
– And the opposite would be the case – if Calvin’s god decrees the Calvinist brain perceive [X] as [NOT Guilty].
.
– In order for the Calvinist brain to choose [Guilty] vs [NOT Guilty] would require the perception in his brain to be OPEN (i.e. un-determined) which would falsify the doctrine of decrees
.
– Therefore it follows – the Calvinist brain is NOT granted the function of choosing between [Guilty] vs [NOT Guilty]
.
– Therefore per the doctrine – it follows – the Calvinist brain is NOT granted the ability to discern [Guilty] from [NOT Guilty] on the matter of any [X]
.
CONCLUSION:
If Calvin’s god were [Guilty] – the Calvinist brain would not be granted the ability to know one way or the other.
Because his brain is not granted the ability of discerning one from the other.
.
Calvin’s god knows whether he is [Guilty] or [NOT Guilty] because those two ALTERNATIVES exist for him to choose.
But his decree does not grant the existence of such ALTERNATIVES to the Calvinist brain.
Also Is this site still active? I occasionally see more recent comments on some of the articles, but it seems like the articles themselves are all several years old.
br.d
Yes – you are correct Pamela.
There are occasional posts by various people – but the articles themselves have been in place for quite some time.
I believe new article content stopped being created around 1 year or so ago.
Apparently – the content manager ( probably due to scheduling issues) has been pulled off adding content.
.
br.d
The site, Pamela, and all the comments to any articles are still being monitored. Sometimes there might be a delay in responding, but new comments from first time people are usually always responded to within 24 hours.
br.d
Hello Karen and welcome
.
On your question – it needs to be recognized – the conception of divine intent for mankind in Calvinism – is radically different from alternative Christian theologies.
.
The Calvinist reading of Romans 9 entails a THEOS who specifically creates and designs “vessels fitted for destruction”.
.
What this means is – the vast majority of individuals on planet earth throughout time – created specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
In Calvinism – these represent what scripture calls the MANY.
Therefore – in Calvinism – that is the *PRIMARY* provision for mankind.
.
There is a *SECONDARY* provision for mankind – which is dedicated to the FEW
The *SECONDARY* provision for mankind – is to save a FEW from the *PRIMARY* provision.
.
Those who are among the MANY are NON-Elect
Those who are among the FEW are Elect.
.
And that would of necessity have to include all humans no matter what age.
.
John Calvin
-quote
By the eternal good pleasure of god – though the reason does not appear – they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
Now you can image – there are going to be NON-Calvinists who will not find that doctrine palatable.
And there will also be a certain number of Calvinists who also do not find that part of the doctrine palatable.
Never the less – it is a foundational core aspect of the doctrine.
.
Since that is a foundational core of the doctrine – I personally would not believe any Calvinist who tried to convince me they reject that part of the doctrine – while claiming to actually embrace Calvinism.
.
One cannot honestly claim to embrace a doctrine – and at the same time reject its foundational core.
.
br.d
Sorry to have to post housekeeping issues, but from my first reply down to the end of the thread, I am unable to reply to any of the other posts. Am I using an unsupported browser (Firefox) or something? I only have a reply button at the end of Br.D’s response to Karen, and at the very end of the text thread. Also, the “save my name…” function doesn’t work.
If I could respond to Derek, I would observe how convenient it is to be insulated from considering the logical implications of one’s belief system simply by claiming that God is so Other from us that we can’t possibly understand Him, or by saying “Who am I to question God?” It could almost be seen as being pre-programmed to avoid the really big questions.
Thanks for your reply, Pamela. You may take great comfort in the fact that I did not say any of those things.
Blessings!
Derek,
You had said,
“You may take great comfort in the fact that I did not say any of those things.”
But I would agree with Pamela as soon as you said:
“Can you see the fatal flaw in the logic you presented?”
As Pamela said, and I agree that you did indeed say those things. What Pam is saying is that since your god DECREED, by PREDETERMINATION anything and everything that has ever, will ever happen, then you should be all for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that happens on this earth, including PRAISING GOD for every abortion, because that was your gods will…for his good pleasure! Even if it is your own child. PRAISE GOD! Your wife and daughter get murdered by a deranged lunatic, but God gets the glory! Right? But what do Calvinists say…”You just don’t understand God!, aka Who am I to question God?
And you talk about our exe-JESUS, and history ignorance? LOL. Well, Okee Dokey, then. Besides, Jesus was ONE OF US.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Hi Pamela,
There may be a situation in which the system does not provide the feature to reply – but to my remembrance I don’t seem to recall one.
.
And yes – your point is very well taken.
C.S. Lewis made a very similar point in regard to Calvinist claims.
.
C.S. Lewis
-quote
C.S. Lewis
-quote
If God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good. For to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’.
And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear — and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend.”
.
The point you are making – is an argument I hear from Calvinists all the time about the use of logic.
A consistent response to self-contradictions – is the claim that the Calvinist is operating in some kind of ethereal realm where -quote HUMAN logic does not apply.
.
One response I may give to them – is the place in scripture where it states “A FALSE balance is an abomination to the Lord”
.
Obviously a balance cannot be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time (aka The principle of Non-contradiction).
And it happens to be the case – that the principle of Non-Contradiction is quite frequently the principle the Calvinist needs to evade.
.
The the fact that God distinguishes a TRUE balance from a FALSE balance clearly serves as an affirmation of the principle of Non-Contradiction within scripture.
.
A balancing scale is simply a tool – the same way logic is a tool.
A FALSE balance is created typically by an individual who seeks to gain an advantage over another.
.
When a person is seeking to evade any tool designed to differentiate TRUE from FALSE – this points to the possibility – that this persons need for a FALSE balance in order to gain an advantage.
.
And personally – I think this is actually the hidden motive behind the Calvinist claim that they are operating in some kind of DIVINE logic which is above human logic..
.
So your point is well taken!
.
However addressing that with Derek – I don’t anticipate will be very fruitful
We are dealing with an entrenched ideology which has an intense need to see itself as superior to others.
When that is the case – open-mindedness is not going to serve the Calvinist’s urgency.
.
blessings!
br.d
br.d
Pamela – I wanted to also alert you to an aspect of Calvinism – just in case you may not know it.
.
Calvinism’s strong suit – for many generations as been its ability to manipulate language.
.
Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language.
Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language
.
Cosmetics have two primary functions
1) Hide that which we don’t want people to see
2) Create an APPEARANCE we do want people to see.
.
This plays out heavily within Calvinist language.
Words and terms are given altered meanings – which are designed to paint FALSE pictures.
.
Calvinist statements employ the use of terms (like “Agency” and “Liberty” for example) which are designed to provide representations which are FALSE.
.
A few quotes to help you get the picture:
.
Dr. Jerry Walls
-quote
If Calvinists didn’t’ rely so heavily on misleading language Calvinism would lose all credibility within a few years.
.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
The Calvinist – unfortunately, and yet consistently, fails to enunciate the RADICAL distinctions within his belief system.
.
Norman Geisler – (Chosen but Free)
-quote:
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
.
Laurence M. Vance (The Other Side of Calvinism)
-quote:
“The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)
.
Micah Coate (The Cultish side of Calvinism)
-quote:
“Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak”
.
Ronnie W. Rogers (A Disenchanted Calvinist)
-quote:
As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”
.
Authors David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood (A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology)-quote:
“This is a clear example of what I call Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”
.
Gilbert VanOrder Jr (Calvinism’s Conflicts)
-quote:
“Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.
.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely (Calvinism a closer look)
-quote:
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false…
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”
.
Francis Hodgson (The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination)
-quote:
“The apology for this gross misapplication of language …..is found in their distressing emergency.
In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”
Derek- “as if to correct Him, and by failing to recognize His utter transcendence and holy glory, and otherness, they seek to bring His lofty thoughts down into inadequate human-brain-sized containers.”
You did, in fact, say exactly “those things”. You just said them in much more verbose language.
Br.D, I am happy to be in such good company.
Br.D, I’ve read quite a bit of this site, so I am familiar with the language. I rejected Calvinism several years ago, but my church has been doing the New City Catechism recently, so I have been taking a long look at what I believe and why. Most of the time my church focuses on first things, other than this series. I recently had a conversation with one of my pastors, and he also used the “God’s thoughts/my thoughts” construct to remove himself from the really sticky points, so I have experienced the language first-hand.
Honestly, I never needed to know more than that calvi-god made humans in his image and likeness and then condemned most of us to hell, to know that I couldn’t believe in that God. However, going through the NCC has helped me refine my beliefs and identify places where traditional beliefs were mashed together with Calvinist beliefs. I’ve had to pick those strands apart and look at them side by side, and recognize that they often don’t fit together. This site has been a tremendous help with that process, and while I’m not big on “labels”, Provisionist resonates with me. God provided a Way; Jesus is The Way; everyone who places their faith in Jesus will be saved. Full stop.
Thank you and the others for taking the time to keep the comments section alive.
br.d
Wonderfully said!
.
It is sad – for me – to recognize some of the reasons there are Calvinistic influences within the Christians that I would not have observed perhaps even 10 years ago.
.
And we now have an unfortunate understanding of something that is called “STEALTH” Calvinism.
I learned this year – there is a Calvinist strategy that is called “The 5 year plan” or something to that affect.
The strategy entails Calvinist pastors applying for positions for congregations which go out of their way to let Calvinist pastoral candidates know they are not wanted and it is expected they will respect that church’s position and not apply.
.
Instead of respecting that church’s position – they do apply and deceive the pastoral search committee into hiring them.
.
The plan is to teach Calvinism to the congregation by STEALTH
Some members will become alarmed
Those members must be gotten rid of through various strategies
.
5 years is projected to be the time it will take to STEALTH convert the congregation
.
NON-Calvinist pastors learn about this – and beg Calvinist pastors to operate in honesty rather than in STEALTH
The response is – it is expected that bringing the “true” Gospel to people will come with difficulty.
.
Then we have a proliferation of Calvinist literature – published with ZERO indicators it is Calvinist material.
So STEALTH Calvinism is also pushed out into the Christian literature marketplace.
.
So your comment about identifying indicators of Calvinist thinking patterns with a pastor is at this point not surprising.
.
But the fact that deceptive strategies have to be used by professing Christians is highly troubling.
.
Blessings
br.d
Let’s review the behavior we are witnessing here from anti-Calvinists in response to the carefully worded and precise argumentation I presented in good faith:
–Claim Calvinists (apparently all of them?) use “doublespeak”
–Ignore the clear meanings of the specific words used by the particular Calvinist who engaged with you
–Import your own assumed meanings into the words and argue against the ideas you added instead of the things the Calvinist actually said
–Claim the person is not loyal to God’s Word and make other wild accusations about Calvinists in general
–Assume the “logical connections” you made in your own mind must be present in the Calvinist’s argument even though they were never presented or introduced by the Calvinist
–Leave the main point made by the Calvinist unaddressed and instead launch into your favorite critiques of other matters
–Quote every heavily biased anti-Calvinist available to support an entirely different point than the one that is being argued (I could quote endless sources that make uncharitable claims about you, too)
–Refuse to accept the gift of a reasonable conversation with a person who took time to treat you as if you might want to have a reasonable conversation
— Congratulate one another on your brilliance, even after demonstrating all of this silliness
If you’d like to re-engage with me on the substantive points I actually made and disengage yourselves from the absurd behaviors listed above, I’d be happy to continue a discussion. OTOH, if you prefer to persist in your self-defeating behaviors, well then, have fun and I’ll just continue to quietly watch with huge grin on my face. 🙂
Derek,
So tell me about Abraham and Sarah!
Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s
daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God’s commandments, statutes, ordinances.
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Now, because you have read Genesis 26:5 above, you might get the idea that Abraham was “sinless”? How can that be, with the statement, “for all have sinned”?
__________________
And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister with a promised inbred son. According to the codified law, Abraham is cursed, because he did a wicked thing, and should be cut off from the sight of his people, and shall bear his iniquity…yet, he was NOT cursed at all, but BLESSED. God never told him about this sin, but gave brother/sister an inbred child instead.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
And how about this one?
Jews:
Romans 11:8/Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Gentiles:
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
I’ve got a lot more!
Ed Chapman
Derek,
Tell me about your 365 week series on Romans 9-11.
Because when I read Romans 9-11 is see the following:
Galatians 3:18
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Seems kinda strange to reference Galatians 3:18 to refute Calvinist Romans 9-11, doesn’t it? I know others will think the same thing, because it is about eschatology! Many won’t see that either.
But you have to go back to Genesis 15, and Genesis 17 where the promise was made.
We have a lot of preachers out there that boast about loving “Expository Preaching”. Line by line, precept by precept. In other words, CARNAL preaching instead of SPIRITUAL preaching. What am I talking about?
Let me give an example…Jonah. How many times have you heard the expository preaching on Jonah? In essense, the preaching is…Jonah was a bad man, because he didn’t want to go to Ninevah. So, about a half hour later, we get to the conclusion that the moral of the story is…BE OBEDIENT!
That’s the CARNAL. But Jesus takes it on the spiritual side of it, calling Jonah a PROPHET about 3 days and 3 nights of Jesus being in the Heart of the Earth. So we see that it wasn’t about Jonah’s disobedience at all, but about Jesus.
And this is where the MISUSE of:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The NATURAL MAN interprets Jonah as…BAD MAN, BE OBEDIENT.
The SPIRITUAL MAN interprets Jonah as prophesy of Jesus.
And in this case, the NATUAL MAN is just as much a Christian as the spiritual man is. But Calvinism describes the natural man as a SINNER WHO HASN’T COME TO GOD YET, nor can he, until God pushes a button to force him to.
So I’m going to give BOTH the natural and spiritual rendition of Galatians 3:18 here, to show what your Romans 9-11 is really talking about.
Carnal (Expository Preaching, or NATURAL MAN):
Promised Land: Small Piece of Real Estate in the Middle East
Promised SINGULAR Seed: Isaac
Who Gets the Promised Land? The Seed of Isaac through Jacob (as opposed to Ismael, or Esau), aka carnal sons of Abraham.
Seal of Promise: Circumcision
Spiritual:
Promised Land: Heaven
Promised SINGULAR Seed: Jesus (Galatians 3:16)
Who Gets the Promised Land? The Seed of Jesus, aka SPIRITUAL sons of Abraham.
Seal of Promise: Holy Spirit
As you will note, that ONE PROMISE goes TWO ways, carnal and spiritual.
Jews are NOT ALLOWED to see the spiritual…
Deuteronomy 29:4/Romans 11:8 (NOTICE THIS GOES TO ROMANS 11)
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
But a REMNANT of Jews are allowed to see the spiritual:
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
And that (John 9-39-41) is your famous REGENERATION that you speak of.
Acts 16:14
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Lydia was Jewish already a follower of God through the Law of Moses…she was not a Gentile who worshiped God.
Paul always preached to the Jews first, before going to any Gentile, and Paul had just gotten into town.
For the Gentiles, we have:
Romans 15:21
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
NO refrideration, I mean, NO REGENERATION NEEDED. But the Jews CANNOT come to Jesus until Jesus wants the to come to Jesus…and that will happen in the future (ROMANS 11).
But why does Romans 9 discuss the Pharaoh? Because the PHARAOH was “USED” by God to tell a STORY about Jesus…just like the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
The Calvinists are the ones who are CARNAL MINDED, because they see that EVERYONE, all of humanity, is just like the Pharaoh. But the following is the SPIRITUAL side of the story.
Moses = JESUS, the REDEEMER
Pharoah = SATAN
Egypt = BONDAGE IN SIN
PROMISED LAND = Canaan (Israel) = HEAVEN
Wandering the Desert = Christian Walk
Crossing the Jordon = NATURAL DEATH
Entering the Promised Land = ETERNAL LIFE
So, as you can see, the Pharaoh was USED, just like the Jews were, in order to TELL A STORY ABOUT JESUS, hence the POTTER using the Pharoah for DESTRUCTION. That does not mean that the Pharaoh is in hell burning for eternity. What that means is that Jesus gives MERCY to the ones he has USED to tell a story about himself…hence your Romans 9. It has nothing to do with HUMANITY as a whole.
And until God takes the blinders off of all of the Jews, instead of just REGENERATING a REMNANT, ALL OF THE JEWS are in the same boat of FUTURE MERCY for their BLINDNESS.
God is NOT a respector of persons. He does not show favoritism.
Romans 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.
Now, I present you with the Apostle Paul:
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
In conclusion:
The Jews cannot come to Jesus until Jesus wants them to come to Jesus, but in the mean time, the Jews are USED by God to tell a story about himself. And so was the Pharaoh. And, I believe, so was Hitler. But that’s just my belief.
But it is for this write up, to show that the Jews cannot come to Jesus until THEY get regenerated, and they will…but it may not happen in THIS lifetime…but after they die. Paul hopes that they are saved during THIS lifetime, so that they don’t have to go through…THE WRATH TO COME.
Go back to the story of Joseph and his brothers, back in Genesis. That story is NOT ABOUT Joseph and his brothers…it’s about Jesus and the Jews. The Jews killed Jesus, Joseph’s brothers threw Joseph in a “PIT”. But in the end, Joseph REVEALED himself, and forgave ALL of them…not some of them, not none of them, but all of them.
Calvinists teaching of Romans 9-11 is a VERY STRANGE teaching, to say the least. What was meant for JEWS ONLY, as become a doctrine for all of humanity. And it’s just not so.
Oh, and David was NOT a sinner from the womb, either. But that’s another story for another time.
Ed Chapman
Derek,
–Claim Calvinists (apparently all of them?) use “doublespeak”
.
br.d
Multiple authors from multiple books all observing the same behavioral patterns.
And a few of those observations include examples which anyone who can thinking logically would understand.
.
And the Calvinist response is to wave that evidence away and call it an “Anti-Calvinist Claim”.
That is like labeling reasons to avoid abortion as “Anti-woman’s-Health Claims”
Good one! :-]
.
Derek
–Ignore the clear meanings of the specific words used by the particular Calvinist who engaged with you
.
br.d
Derek – don’t be silly!
Since there is a consensus that Calvinist use language in a misleading manner – there is no such thing as “clear” meanings.
.
Derek
–Import your own assumed meanings into the words and argue against the ideas you added instead of the things the Calvinist actually said.
.
br.d
Words like “Permission” and “Allow” can be used as examples
A standard Calvinist practice – is to use these words as REPLACEMENT words for the word “CAUSE”
Many Calvinists today (as taught by John Piper for example) use the word “Permit” its derivatives – as a REPLACEMENT word for “CAUSE”.
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term Permission THE MEANING WHICH HE ATTACHES TO IT will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
.
So here the Calvinist practice becomes obvious
The Calvinist takes the words “Permission” and “Allow” and ATTACHES THE MEANING of the word CAUSE to them.
.
It works this way:
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSES he permits
2) What Calvin’s god DOES NOT CAUSE he does not permit.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Thus – what is NOT knowingly and willingly decreed is NOT PERMITTED
.
Thus – in Calvinism
If Calvin’s god decrees Derek will perform SIN_X at TIME-T then that decree does not grant permit Derek “Permission” to NOT Perform SIN_X at TIME-T
.
And concerning Adam
1) Adam was “Free” and “Permitted” to eat the fruit – because Adam eating the fruit was decreed
2) Adam was “NOT Free” and “NOT Permitted” to NOT eat the fruit because Adam NOT eating the fruit was NOT decreed.
.
Derek
– Refuse to accept the gift of a reasonable conversation …….
– Congratulate one another on your brilliance, even after demonstrating all of this silliness…
.
br.d
Derek – you use words like “reasonable” and “silliness” the same way Calvinists typically use these words – in order to create FACADE of rational reasoning.
.
I provided two posts in particular – in syllogistic form to a couple of your statements.
I’m happy for you to address those posts LOGICALLY if you have the ability to do so.
Otherwise – I will recognize your response as emotional.
You are unhappy that people are aware of the Calvinist practice of playing SHELL GAMES with words
And you are unhappy that people can discern them.
That is understandable
.
blessings
br.d
br.d,
Great explanations on permit and allow.
I’ve kinda went thru that word in the KJV, although I can’t remember what the Strong’s Concordance definition is for the reference of, SUFFER the little children to come to me.
Certainly, God doesn’t want children to suffer. But just betwixt thee and me, 1611 English is a bit strange!!
Ed Chapman
br.d
BTW:
As I’ve shown LOGICALLY in a couple of previous responses to you within this conversation
.
Calvinism’s infallible decree does not grant your brain the ability to discern between [reasonable] and [NOT-reasonable] on the matter of anything.
.
Nor does the decree grant your brain the ability to discern between [Silliness] from [NOT-Silliness] on the matter of anything.
.
Where the decree determines your brain will PERCEIVE [X] as [reasonable]
That decree does not grant your brain the ability to PERCEIVE [X] as [NOT-reasonable].
.
And it is logically impossible for your brain to CHOOSE something which it cannot even PERCEIVE.
.
blessings
br.d
br.d
We also provided a word analysis as a response to one of your recent posts – where you used the word “Agency” pertaining to humans in Calvinism.
.
Here – as is the case with many words which the Calvinist uses – the word “Agency” entails a NON-NORMATIVE meaning.
.
In Calvinism – the human brain is not granted any SAY or any CHOICE or any CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within it.
.
In Calvinism
1) The DETERMINER ( Calvin’s god) is always ACTIVE
2) Creation functions as a PASSIVE RECIPIENT of that which is decreed to infallibly come to pass within it.
.
Calvin’s god – for example – determines every lightening bolt within the earths atmosphere.
He determine when and where it will start – and when and where it will end
He determines its voltage and its current and its mass
He determines the arrangement of every one of its atomic particles (electrons)
He determines every movement of every one of its atomic particles (electrons)
.
The same is the case – for every impulse that will come to pass within the domain of the human brain.
Every impulse will come to pass infallibly
And since it is impossible for creation to resist that which is infallible – it follows – every impulse comes to pass within the human brain IRRESISTIBLY.
.
So how does that affect the Calvinist concept of human “Agency” ?
.
Simple
In Calvinism – the “Agency” that is granted to a human is the same “Agency” that is granted to a radio-controlled toy.
.
And any logical person should be able to see – that is not a NORMATIVE understanding of human “Agency”
.
Thus we have another example of a ALTERED MEANING which the NON-Calvinist must understand – any time a Calvinist appeals to human “Agency”.
.
Any NON-Calvinist who is unfamiliar with the NON-NORMATIVE meanings of words within Calvinist statements – is guaranteed to be mislead.
.
And as the numerous quotes from NON-Calvinist authors shows – the phenomenon of people being strategically mislead by Calvinist language is critical to recognize.
.
blessings
br.d
CALVINIST CONCEPTS WHICH EXIST ONLY IN THE FORM OF FACADES OR COUNTERFEITS
In 2022 Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Timothy Stratton jointly published an article within the Religions, MPDI, Open Access Journal. The title of the article is: An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument.
.
One part of this article attempts to show how many concepts within Calvinism exist only in “Ersatz” form.
.
Ersatz – from the German “irsezzen”:
To provide a replacement, a compensation, a substitute, a simulation, or a facade or counterfeit.
.
The following is an example of a concept commonly enunciated by Calvinists – which exists only in the form of an “Ersatz”.
.
CALVINISM AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL:
In December of 2022, Dr. James White (Calvinist) and Dr. William Lane Craig had a dialog regarding this topic.
.
During that dialog, Dr. Craig stated:
-quote
The Calvinist view is of a god who “MOVES” the human will to do evil acts, so that he can then punish that human for doing the very thing he “MADE” that human do. That is a view which makes God the AUTHOR of evil.
.
Dr. White’s response:
-quote
In scripture we are given numerous examples. Genesis 50:20. Joseph, knowing God actually “RESTRAINED” their evil. God actually “RESTRAINS” men’s evil. God “RESTRAINED” Joseph’s brothers from killing Joseph.
.
So here we have a Calvinist appeal to “Divine RESTRAINT”
But is it real RESTRAINT?
Or is it a COUNTERFEIT RESTRAINT?
A SIMULATION of RESTRAINT?
.
When we unpackage this appeal it – we discover there is no such thing as DIVINE PREVENTION/RESTRAINT within Calvinism.
.
DIVINE PREVENTION/RESTRAINT only exists in the form of a FACADE, a COUNTERFEIT, a SIMULATION.
This – would be an example of an “Ersatz”. which can be easily understood by the follow:
.
1) In Calvinism – an infallible decree determines what (including events) will be granted existence within creation.
.
2) Events which are decreed are events which will be granted existence – and the decree makes that events existence infallible.
.
3) Events which are NOT decreed are events which are NOT granted existence. And their NON-Existence is also infallible.
.
4) Additionally – events which are CONTRARY to the decree – are events which are NOT granted existence. And their NON-Existence is infallible.
.
5) It is logically impossible to PREVENT/RESTRAIN a NON-Existent event.
.
6) So in Calvinism – the only candidates for any kind of PREVENTION/RESTRAINT would have to be events which have the possibility of existence.
.
7) The only events which will exist in Calvinism – are events which have been decreed to come to pass with INFALLIBLE EXACTNESS which cannot be PREVENTED/RESTRAINED simply because it is impossible to PREVENT or RESIST something that is infallible.
.
9) For Calvin’s god to PREVENT/RESTRAIN any event – would require him to PREVENTING/RESTRAIN that which he decreed to infallibly come to pass.
.
CONCLUSION:
It should be obvious – there is no such thing as DIVINE PREVENTION/RESTRAINT within Calvinism.
.
The only thing Calvin’s god can PREVENT/RESTRAIN is himself
He can PREVENT/RESTRAIN himself from decreeing a particular event come to pass
In such case – that event would be a NON-Existent event
And it is logically impossible to PREVENT/RESTRAIN a NON-Existent event.
.
Therefore it becomes obvious – DIVINE PREVENTION/RESTRAINT exists in Calvinism – only in the form of “Ersatz”
A replacement, a compensation, a substitute, a simulation, or a facade or counterfeit.
.
Why does the Calvinist have a need for divine prevention/restraint if it doesn’t exist in his belief system?
Because – concerning sins and evils – the concept of divine prevention/restraint is held as a NORMAL Christian worldview.
.
The Calvinistic does not want to be recognized as having an ABNORMAL belief system.
.
So he must find ways to manufacture FACADES of things which NORMAL Christians have.
Hey Derek!
Dr. Flowers just released another Youtube video – in which he provides an example of how Calvinists *ALTER* the meanings of words.
.
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!!
It couldn’t have come at a more opportune time!
Could this be the Lord!!! :-]
.
Calvinist J.I. Packer
-quote
What is an “ANTIMONY”?
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it as A CONTRADICTION between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary”.
.
From the Greek: Anti(Against) Nomos (the Law)
In the philosophical sense used by Kant, CONTRADICTION between logical conclusions”.
.
Notice here – the dictionary clearly defines “Antimony” as A CONTRADICTION
Thus the STANDARD and COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD meaning of this word = A CONTRADICTION
.
Now let’s watch as J.I. Packer takes it upon himself to declare all dictionaries are wrong.
Packer is going to create his own personalized *AD-HOC* definition for this word.
Lets watch as he continues…
.
-quote
For our purposes however, this definition is not quite accurate.
The opening words [within every dictionary] should read “an APPEARANCE of contradiction”
For the whole point of an “antimony” in theology (and whose theology is Packer speaking about here???)
at any rate – is that it is not a REAL CONTRADICTION – though it LOOKS like one.”
.
.
Notice here what Packer uses as an argument.
1) For our purposes…….
.
For WHOSE purposes????
For Calvinist purposes
.
What is the Calvinist purpose?
To make his system *APPEAR* to be what it is not.
.
2) this definition is not quite accurate
WHAT?????
Not quite accurate????
What Packer has done here is *INVERTED* the meaning of this word.
.
This serves as an example of what INTELLECTUAL HONESTY looks like in Calvinism.
,
The fact that J.I. Packer can so easily *ALTER* the meanings of words – tells us – this is *STANDARD PRACTICE* in Calvinism.
br.d
Pamela – the Lord has given you a keen mind!!!
I love the way He gives his people insight!!
.
Sincere thanks
br.d
Chapmaned24, would you mind explaining this:
“God is just in causing the death of any person because all are fallen in Adam.”
My response:
You would have to buy off on “ORIGINAL SIN” to believe that. I don’t.
I’ve never met a believer who didn’t believe in original sin. I would like to hear your alternative view. Thank you.
br.d
I think you have a specific question for Ed
But I thought this would be a good opportunity to show another example of how Calvinists use language.
.
Here is Derek’s quote
God is just in causing the death of any person because all are fallen in Adam.
.
Notice here – what Derek is carefully obfuscating.
.
In Calvinism – the state of nature – including every man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined – and at any nano-second in time – cannot be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
And man is granted NO SAY , NO CHOICE, and NO CONTROL over that which is decreed.
.
What you are seeing with Derek’s statement here – is called a LIE OF OMISSION
.
A lie of omission – is communication designed to mislead – by the strategy of omitting critical facts – which if not omitted would not mislead.
.
When we start to examine Calvinist statements – we eventually discover – a large percentage of Calvinist statements take the form of Lies of omission.
.
Personally from my observation:
1) Words and terms which are strategically designed to hide components of divine evil
2) Words and terms which are strategically designed to create FACADES of human autonomy
3) And lies of omission
These three language characteristics represent a significant percentage of Calvinist statements.
.
I do not believe Derek is intentionally trying to be deceptive – or use deceptive language.
I believe Derek – as is the case with all Calvinists – has been conditioned to embrace these language modes.
Hi Pamela,
Well, the first thing we need to do is to establish the points of what makes up the doctrine of Original Sin.
Point #1
They say that Adam was NOT created mortal!
————————————————-
From the Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)
Canon 109. (Greek cxij. continued.)
That Adam was not created by God subject to death
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body — that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
————————————————-
This is the first thing to debunk. You should notice that the GOTO reference is 99.9 percent of the time, Romans Chapter 5 to prove what was just said in Canon 109.
However, we need to go back for a moment to Genesis 2:17 from where they get their Romans 5 from.
Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Now, we know that Adam didn’t NATURALLY die…THAT day. And because Adam lived to be 935, they calculate that A DAY IS AS A THOUSAND YEARS for Adam. They say that the dying PROCESS began after he ate of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
But isn’t it funny that a day has 24 hours for each creation day to them? But for Adam, a thousand years?
Anyway, we had TWO TREES in the Garden, and many forget about…THAT OTHER TREE. Just like they forget about SATAN. They think Satan is just an employee of God, so to speak, as if humans are more evil than Satan is.
I’m going to say it up front, and will explain as I go along. But the ONLY WAY that Adam could have lived for eternity was to have eaten of the Tree of Life…that OTHER TREE that no one talks about. But he didn’t. He ate of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil instead.
But, and here is the kicker…Adam STILL could have OBTAINED eternal life in a fallen state.
Genesis 3:22, 24
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
God had to block access to that OTHER TREE that no one talks about, SO THAT Adam could NOT live forever.
The ONLY THING we “Inherited from Adam” was, as Romans 5 points out, is DEATH OF THE BODY.
But Adam was going to die ANYWAY. I guess I’m anathema! LOL.
Many think that THIS EARTH was meant to be our permanent home for eternity, but that Adam screwed it all up for us, and the Jesus had to slap his palm to his forehead, and say, “Look what you did, you idiot! Now I have to go back to the drawing board and come up with another plan!”
So, I’m going to now take you to 1 Corinthians 15:42-46. Yes, that is the RESURRECTION portion of the chapter. But it discusses two things.
1. The Body that Adam BEGAN with, aka NATURAL BODY
2. The Body that is YET TO COME, aka SPIRITUAL BODY
Keep in mind, that Adam was made of DIRT. So let’s see what this DIRT is…
NATURAL BODY
1 Corinthians 15:42-46
42 It is sown in corruption
NOTE: That word, “corruption” is not discussing morality, but a DECAYING DYING BODY. It’s like I always say, “Life, it’s a DEADLY disease. There is no cure. If you live, you will die. No one gets out of here alive!”
Anyway, we see that word “corruption” in…
Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Acts 13:34
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Acts 13:35
Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 13:36
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
Acts 13:37
But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
OK, so back to 1 Corinthians 15:42-46, NATURAL BODY
NATURAL BODY
42 It is sown in corruption
43 It is sown in dishonour…is sown in weakness
44 It is sown a natural body
Now, for the SPIRITUAL BODY
42 it is raised in incorruption:
43 it is raised in glory…it is raised in power:
44 it is raised a spiritual body
And here is the SLAM DUNK:
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
Natural bodies came FIRST, meaning, Adam was going to die a NATURAL death NO MATTER WHAT HE DID, or didn’t do…except if he would have eaten of THAT OTHER TREE that no one talks about, whether BEFORE or AFTER he ate of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, either way. But God blocked access after the fall.
And that brings me back to Genesis 2:17 to say that Genesis 2:17 has NOTHING to do with NATURAL death of the body at all. It has NOTHING to do with Romans 5. Romans 5 is about NATURAL DEATH of the Body, but NOT Genesis 2:17.
Genesis 2:17 is SPIRITUAL death, meaning that SIN SEPARATES you from God, and the only way to bring that relationship back is a sacrifice. So, God killed an animal. Blood was shed. And this is why Abel was a keeper of sheep in the days that no one ate meat. Sin, sacrifice, sin, sacrifice, sin, sacrifice, and so on, and so on.
Now, Romans 7:7-9 is the EXACT SAME situation as Adam and Eve…and THIS is related to Genesis 2:17…
7 …I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Babies…SAME. We all go through the same process…each and every one of us. Adam got knowledge from a SUPERNATURAL tree. We get our knowledge from…THE LAW.
1 John 3:4
…sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
I say again, the only thing we inherited from Adam was…NATURAL DEATH of the body, all because he never ate of THAT OTHER TREE that no one talks about.
And since Romans 5 is widely discussed amongst Original Sin folks…one verse is NEVER REALLY discussed…
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
BUT…BUT…BUT…FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
That’s why I mentioned Abraham’s sin of sleeping with Sister Sarah. Just because you sin, that does NOT mean that the sin is IMPUTED.
Sin is only imputed if you KNOW that it’s a sin. Adam’s sin…being naked. Yes, he disobeyed God, but once he KNEW what sin was…he covered his private parts.
He felt “guilt” for being naked before God. Do you see where I’m going with this? That has SPIRITUAL meaning, to. Being EXPOSED to God…the word I’m talking about…SHAME. He felt guilt and shame, because he was naked, so he covered his private parts. He was “separated from God”. So, God not only clothed their nakedness, but covered their SHAME. There is always a spiritual story behind the carnal action.
Now, take that back to Romans 7:7-9. We all go through the same thing. That is why CHILDREN are INNOCENT. We’ve been saying that for a LONG LONG LONG LONG time.
But…the Calvinists think we are evil from the womb. But even if we are…SO WHAT? As long as we don’t feel GUILT…then we don’t even know it’s a sin…whatever it was we did.
If you didn’t notice, I kept using caps on the word KNOWLEDGE. What was the name of the tree in the garden?
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had NO KNOWLEDGE between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Posess what?
The Promised Land.
To a Christian, the promised land is HEAVEN…remember, the carnal has a spiritual to it.
Who got to go to the promised land?
Those who had FAITH…
1. Caleb
2. Joshua
and…
Those who had NO KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Now, I want to show you gentile idol worshipers…
Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Winked!
So, that is not the WHOLE story as to why I don’t believe in Original Sin, but it’s a start, and it’s pretty compelling! Just call me anathema! LOL
Ed Chapman
So let me just open up that fire hose a little wider. That’s a lot to take in. I can see how scripture and doctrine have been conflated since pretty much forever. After I have a chance to read this a half a dozen times and digest it for a while, I might have more questions for you. Thank you for taking the time to write all that out!
Pamela,
Furthermore, the Doctrines of Grace, whether it be PREVENIENT, or IRRESISTABLE, are BOTH dependent on the Doctrine of Original Sin.
Debunk Original Sin, and BOTH doctrines of Grace fall flat. God does not have to REGENERATE anyone, but for the Jews, to whom God blinded…see Deuteronomy 29:4/Romans 11:8/John 9:39-41. Gentiles are NOT blind…Romans 15:21.
Ed Chapman
Gen 18 “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Today’s passage at my daughter’s church. The entire negotiation between Abraham and God makes no sense if God predestined this to happen. It was never not going to happen even if enough righteous men were found.
br.d
Excellent point Pamela!!!
.
Let us consider the contradiction which you are observing here – having to do with what is typically identified as CREATURE AUTONOMY
.
It is very common for Calvinists to boast their system is superior to others because it places a higher emphasis on divine control.
.
The Calvinist concept of divine control is going to RADICALLY alter the concept of human “SELF-CONTROL”
.
Are humans granted “SELF-CONTROL” at all in Calvinism?
This is one of the parts of the doctrine which make Calvinists themselves struggle with.
.
Calvinist leaders are very sensitive to those parts of the doctrine which Calvinists constantly struggle with.
.
In order to minimize this struggle – Calvinist leaders use LANGUAGE to paint FALSE PICTURES.
.
– False Pictures of divine benevolence
– False Pictures of creature autonomy
.
1) The doctrine stipulates – every event without exception is 100% FIXED in the past – by an infallible decree.
2) That infallible decree makes every event 100% IMMUTABLE (unchangeable)
.
Why then do Calvinist leaders use words like “Prevent”, “Permit”, “Allow”, “Restrain”, “Intervene”?
.
Is it possible to “Prevent” something which is infallibly unchangeable?
Is it possible to “Restrain” something which is infallibly unchangeable?
Is it possible to “Intervene” something which is infallibly unchangeable?
Obviously not!
.
The use of these terms – constitutes a betrayal and denial and back-pedaling of the very divine sovereignty which the Calvinist boasts makes his system superior to others.
.
Why is the Calvinist using language designed to betray, deny and back-pedal his own doctrine?
.
Because the Calvinists primary urgency is to create BUY IN
Having a doctrine which claimed to be the GOLD STANDARD of Christianity is useless if hardly any Christian accepts it.
.
That is why Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language
And that is why Calvinist language is a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
.
blessings!
Pamela said: “The entire negotiation between Abraham and God makes no sense if God predestined this to happen. It was never not going to happen even if enough righteous men were found.”
This is a particularly good illustration of the way a person’s misunderstanding of reformed theology–whether intentional or merely through ignorance–leads to a great confusion in interpreting the way the theology operates. Basically, if one assumes incompatibilism (and/or that a particular version of compatibilism is required by reformed theology), one renders oneself incapable of recognizing or acknowledging the rationality of the theology. Instead, one’s personal presuppositions (such as those expressed repeatedly by Br.D’s comments) will remove the possibility of grasping the broader scope and implications of the theology and its potential philosophical explications. Ironically, opponents of reformed theology often assume the very same presuppositions as hyper-Calvinists: namely, that the theology’s deterministic components render impossible any genuine human choice. Mainstream Calvinism, on the other hand, teaches the exact opposite by affirming explicitly that deterministic divine sovereignty does not in any way eliminate the liberty or contingency of second causes, but rather establishes them. While anti-Calvinists, along with hyper-Calvinists, will never bring themselves to admit that it is possible for the glorious and transcendent God who is omnipotent and all-wise to accomplish such a thing, Calvinists affirm that such a thing is indeed possible for such a wonderful God. Thus, passages such as the one reference by Pamela are not even slightly challenging for true Calvinists to understand or interpret in view of their actual theology. Now, go ahead and repeat your presuppositions and misinterpretations and narrowly selective quotes of Calvinism one more time, Br.D. I will be sitting here rolling my eyes. LOL. 🙂
Derek,
In other words…in plain English, God was TOYING with Abraham, due to God’s “SOVEREIGNTY” of being all knowing, and stuff, that he already knew that there was absolutely no one righteous, so God will play a GAME of negotiation with Abraham, and was not serious in negotiating with evil humans.
Your explanation, Derek, is non-nonsensical. It lacks “common sense”.
Ed Chapman
Ed
It lacks “common sense”.
.
br.d
BINGO!!!
.
Common sense – is sense which NORMAL people share in common.
Common meanings for words – and common conceptions of how the world works.
.
The problem for the Calvinist is that his world is not the world in which NORMAL people live.
.
He lives in a world in which every impulse that comes to pass within his brain is FIXED in the past by an infallible decree which he had NO SAY in the matter of.
.
And yet – he wants to be seen as a NORMAL human.
What a hoot!
.
I still think God gave Calvinism to mankind as a form of entertainment! :-]
br.d,
Entertaining, it is. I’m just glad that I was almost 50 before I even heard of this new religion called calvinism. It was astonishing as to what makes these people tick.
br.d
That was not too different from myself Ed
I had been in the Lord for about 30 years before I even heard of Calvinism.
.
The way I came in contact with it – was working for a company – and a certain fellow starting working at this company.
I happened to find out he was a professing Christian.
.
I would quite frequently bump into him and he would brag about how his pastor was teaching his congregation that most Christians were reading scripture incorrectly.
.
I figured his pastor was on a spiritual pride trip.
But then I started investigating the things this pastor was teaching and discovered it was Calvinism.
.
I asked this brother how long his pastor had been teaching Calvinism.
He gave me this dear-in-the-headlight look and said he didn’t know what Calvinism was.
.
This pastor was STEALTH teaching Calvinism to his congregation.
They had absolutely no idea he was doing it.
.
From there I started doing more research – and discovered Dr. Flower’s and SOT101
.
The degree of spiritual pride and double-speak language tricks all too obvious to me.
And I feel sorry for the unsuspecting young people who are seduced into it.
.
I do see it as a form of mental ensnarement.
br.d,
That reminds me of the Herbert W Armstrong clan I’d watch on TV called The Worldwide Church of God…Roderick C Merideth… his favorite saying was, “look it up and check up on me if you don’t believe me” That was a trick. He knew no one would, otherwise that would be disrespect if they did.
Every cult has their tricks. I likened his show as comedy, as well, but sure felt sorry for those suckered into the Armstrong cult. Even his son, Garner Ted Armstrong was a hoot to listen to.
Ed
Ed
br.d
The Lord gave you wisdom to be able to see through those tricks!
I thank the Lord every day – for the way he has saved me from things I see other people get sucked into.
There but for the grace of God go I.
.
He is good!!!!!!!
Derek:
Ironically, opponents of reformed theology often assume the very same presuppositions as hyper-Calvinists:
.
br.d
This is a totally silly non-sequitor.
.
It is completely understood that the vast majority of Calvinists fall under the rubric of “Moderate” Calvinism.
.
The difference between the “Hyper” Calvinist and the “Moderate” Calvinist has to do with the individuals predisposition.
.
The Hyper Calvinist places a higher priority on being faithful to the doctrine and on TRUTH-TELLING.
The Hyper Calvinist has no problem quoting and defending proclamations from John Calvin.
.
For example
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
The “Moderate” Calvinist is always to some degree in denial of the doctrine.
.
Take the subject of infant damnation for example.
.
A Calvinist who is TRUE to the doctrine – will not blink or flinch at declaring babies are specifically created for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure – just as much as adults are.
.
The Moderate Calvinist however will move into all sorts of SEMANTIC TAP-DANCE routines – because he is concerned about how babies being created for eternal torment will be rejected by the NON-Calvinist population.
.
Another example – is CERTAINTY of election.
.
A Calvinist who is TRUE to the doctrine will acknowledge that Calvin’s god – as the divine potter of Romans 9 – creates a percentage of believers as CHAFF believers – giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt *WITHOUT* the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
-quote
we must leave to *god alone* the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his *SECRET* election. (Institutes 4.1.4)
.
A moderate Calvinist will insist he has “Assurance” of salvation for a number of years
But if Calvin’s god created that Calvinist as a CHAFF believer – he will wake up in the lake of fire – and then realize the “Assurance” Calvin’s god decreed to come to pass within his brain was a FALSE “Assurance”
.
The Hyper Calvinist is typically a rational person.
Where the Moderate Calvinist tends to be emotional – and not comfortable with what the doctrine stipulates.
.
Therefore – it is consistently observed – Moderate Calvinists are inconsistent Calvinists.
.
blessings
br.d
br.d, Derek, and Heather
It’s obvious to me that calvinists can’t properly comprehend what they read.
The word destruction from Romans 9 is not discussing eternal topics. It’s discussing this life only, and those in Romans 9 get ETERNAL mercy because of it. THE PHAROAH was used as a prop for a story representing Satan, Moses as Jesus, Egypt as BONDAGE to sin. And the Jews, as being in bondage to sin.
Predestination, in the sense of calvinism does not exist. Christians are predestined to be… not that a non- Christian is predestined to be…
Faith is not a work, the law is. No one is depraved. The Jews are the only elect due to their blindness. They are the only ones needing regeneration.
We’ve got a Jewish book, written by Jews, about Jews. Very little of that book is about gentiles. Yet gentiles seem to think the exact opposite.
Jews seek righteousness of the law, because God commanded them to. But he didn’t command gentiles that.
Abraham was a gentile. Righteousness does not come by the knowledge of good and evil
… the WORKS of the law. Faith is not of THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, the law.
That’s the synopsis of the Bible… righteousness. One, by the law, the other by faith. Faith is not imputed to the Jews, but rather, blindness is healed, aka, regeneration. Gentiles are not in need of regeneration due to not being blinded.
Calvinism has redefined Christianity by redefining words, phrases, and concepts.
Original sin is a problem. Baptism for babies is illogical. The allegation that David was wicked from the womb is a distortion.
The doctrines of grace is a fabrication.
Calvin’s religion is a fake Christianity. Not valid.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Yes – I think your observations are right on Ed!
.
It becomes pretty obvious that the Calvinist is required to read things INTO the text – in order to make scripture affirm what the Calvinist needs it to affirm.
.
This is why N.T. Wright jokingly calls Romans 9: “Calvinism’s Happy Hunting Ground” :-]
A former calvinist friend of mine said that her church had a five week series teaching on Romans 9. They are obsessed with that chapter.
br.d
Yes! A number of years ago – I got turned on to Dr. Gordon Fee and his seminary lectures.
.
The thing I appreciated about Dr. Fee is that he is a true scholar.
What makes a true scholar is how he presents information.
He gives you *ALL PERSPECTIVES* and leaves you free to make up your own mind.
.
Dr. Fee gave a course in Romans
And it included materials from all of the leading scholars – and the latest historical data on the book of Romans.
.
I remember him telling the class about a joke which was circulating within scholarship concerning Calvinist Karl Barth on the book of Romans.
.
“Barth turns Paul into Barth” :-]
.
You will never see a Calvinist pastor providing his congregation with that level of scholarship.
What you will see is simply indoctrination.
br.d
What is Sophism:
A plausible but fallacious argument.
An argument designed to create the *APPEARANCE* of PLAUSIBILITY
But which under scrutiny of LOGIC collapses.
.
DOUBLE-SPEAK is an example of Sophism.
SEMANTIC TAP-DANCE routines are examples of Sophism.
.
What is Ersatz:
Ersatz – from the German “irsezzen”:
To provide a replacement, a compensation, a substitute, a simulation, or a facade or counterfeit.
.
A Sophist argument is designed to produce an appearance (facade) of something which does not actually exist.
And again – under the scrutiny of LOGIC – the facade collapses
.
.
What is DOUBLE-SPEAK (William Lutz, an American linguist)
-quote
“Doublespeak is language designed to evade…..to make the unpleasant *APPEAR* pleasant, the unattractive *APPEAR* attractive, or at least tolerable.
Basically, it’s language that *PRETENDS* to communicate, but really doesn’t. It is language designed to mislead, while pretending not to.
Doublespeak is not a slip of the tongue or a mistake in use of language. It’s exactly the opposite. It is language used by people who are very intelligent, and *VERY SOPHISTICATED* in the use of language. And know that you can do an awful lot with language.
Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing. Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is. It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language—communication — and what doublespeak does — mislead, distort, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.
Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through everyday language.
It takes advantage of the fact that normal everyday language use is fundamentally cooperative. Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite: to appear like honest communication while actually hiding incriminating facts. “
.
blessings!
br.d
Derek
opponents of reformed theology often assume the very same presuppositions as hyper-Calvinists: namely, that the theology’s deterministic components render impossible any genuine human choice.
.
br.d
Is it LOGICALLY COHERENT to assert a human is granted a “Genuine Choice” for something which does not exist for that human to choose?
.
If you don’t have the option of writing a check for a billion dollars – do you have a “Genuine Choice” in the matter of whether you will write a check for a billion dollars?
.
If it is *NOT* decreed that you will write a check for a billion dollars – does the option exist for you to write a check for a billion dollars?
.
The LOGICAL answer is of course no.
.
Thus we can see
1) An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
2) If [X] is NOT decreed – then [X] is NOT granted existence within creation
3) Where [X] is NOT granted existence within creation – it follows – [X] does not exist for a human to choose.
.
QUESTION:
What *KIND* of choice does a Calvinist have concerning [X] when [X] does not exist for that Calvinist to choose?
.
ANSWER:
A FACADE of Choice
It exists for that Calvinist only in the form of a SEMANTIC FACADE.
.
Why does the Calvinist tell himself he has a “Genuine Choice” for an option which never existed for him to choose?
.
Dr. William Lane Craig gives us the answer
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take.
.
Blessings
br.d
Derek,
This is a particularly good illustration of the way a person’s misunderstanding of reformed theology–whether intentional or merely through ignorance–leads to a great confusion in interpreting the way the theology operates.
.
br.d
Here we have the classic Calvinist “You Don’t Understand” argument
.
Lets unpackage it:
.
A young girl is confronted by her concerned parents and friends when they discover her boyfriend is violently beating her.
“You don’t understand!” She will insist.
.
But they actually do understand
They understand her boyfriend is beating her.
And they understand that is not *NORMAL* behavior
.
She invents a host of excuses and justifications.
She blames herself – she blames others.
She blames everyone and everything except your boyfriend.
.
The excuses and the justifications represent the “UNDERSTANDING” she wants here parents and friends to have.
But her parents and her friends know better.
.
Never the less – she continues to insist they “DO NOT UNDERSTAND”
.
What she is actually saying is – they don’t understand *THE WAY SHE WANTS THEM* to understand.
.
This is exactly what the Calvinist is doing when he claims “You don’t understand”
He has a library of excuses and justifications – all wrapped up in theological double-speak – sitting on a glorified throne of “Reformed Theology”
.
In order to produce an “UNDERSTANDING” which the Calvinist can live with- logic and language must be contorted and twisted into a Gordian-Knot of language tricks.
.
The girl whose boyfriend is violently beating her convinces herself everything if fine.
But she is ensnared.
“Mainstream Calvinism, on the other hand, teaches the exact opposite by affirming explicitly that deterministic divine sovereignty does not in any way eliminate the liberty or contingency of second causes, but rather establishes them.”
The way I heard it put by a Calvinist is that the non-elect have the liberty/free will to go on sinning all day long according to their sin nature–you know, the one that God gave them and that they do not have the means to overcome.
br.d
On the Calvinist use of the words like “liberty” and “Freedom” and how the language states these things are not “eliminated” or “infringed upon” but rather “established” we need to understand how this works in Calvinism – because it is *NOT* how those things work outside of Calvinism.
.
It works this way:
If Calvin’s god – is going to decree [X] to infallibly come to pass – a NECESSARY CONDITION is that [X] be granted “Freedom” or “Liberty” to come to pass.
.
So things like “Freedom”, “Liberty”, “Permission” etc are NECESSARY CONDITIONS of the decree.
.
However – creation is NOT granted “Freedom”, “Liberty”, “Permission” to countervail an infallible decree.
.
It the language of philosophy – an infallible decree does not grant creation the ability to *BE OTHERWISE* or *DO OTHERWISE* than that which is decreed.
.
So if it is decreed that Derek will perform SIN-X at TIME-T – that decree must grant Derek “Freedom”, “Liberty”, and “Permission” sufficient to perform SIN_X at TIME-T.
.
If Calvin’s god does not grant “Freedom”, or “Liberty”, or “Permission” for that which he decrees – he becomes a house divided against himself.
.
So that is ONE side of the coin
And that is the side of the coin which Derek is going to address
But watch to see if Derek does not OBFUSCATE the other side of the coin.
.
Creation is NOT granted “Freedom”, “Liberty”, or “Permission” to BE OTHERWISE, or DO OTHERWISE than that which is decreed.
.
So if it is decreed Derek will perform SIN_X at TIME-T – Derek is NOT granted “Freedom” or “Liberty”, or “Permission” to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T.
.
.
That is what the language within that statement is referring too – where it says these things are “Established”
.
However it is critical to recognize – for the NON-Calvinist – “Freedom” and “Liberty” are eliminated – when it comes to the “Freedom” or “Liberty” to BE OTHERWISE or DO OTHERWISE than that which is decreed.
.
You are NOT Free and NOT at liberty to BE/DO OTHERWISE than that which is decreed.
.
So for the NON-Calvinist – “Freedom”, and “Liberty” are eliminated – in that regard.
But the Calvinist tells himself – the “Freedom” and “Liberty” to BE/DO OTHERWISE is of no consequence.
.
So we cannot take the language within Calvinist statements at face value.
The Calvinist has his own unique INSIDER meanings for many of these words.
And the Calvinist is happy to use INSIDER language which he knows will mislead the OUTSIDER.
.
So Calvinists are able to justify certain forms of dishonesty in the use of language – for the sake of drawing someone into their system.
.
When Hillary Clinton was asked if she “Wiped” her server – she made a wiping motion with her hand
And she said: “NO I did not wipe the server”.
.
But she was playing a deceptive game with the word “wipe”
And it wouldn’t take long before the evidence would unquestionable – that she did in fact “wipe” her server.
.
But you can see how she is using words.
That is what you need to learn to expect with words used in every Calvinist statement.
.
blessings
I forgot to mention that the first part of the sermon was an explicitly Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. I’m still scratching my head about how he thought he could mash those two together and expect no one to notice.
Hey Pamela,
From my understanding, the 2 main camps in the debate of Calvinism is:
1. Calvinism, of course
2. Arminianism
They both believe in the “Doctrines of Grace” in which you allude to regarding “their sin nature–you know, the one that God gave them and that they do not have the means to overcome.”
Both believe in a “sin nature”, and both believe that God must DO SOMETHING FIRST in order for you to BELIEVE, or, have faith.
Calvinism calls it “irresistable Grace”. Arminianism calls it “Prevenient Grace”. Prevenient means, according to dictionary dot com, “coming before”.
However, there is another to consider, and that is Pelagianism, making it 3 camps instead of just two. Pelagianism doesn’t believe in the doctrines of grace at all. They also do not believe in “Original Sin”, either.
From the University of Chicago Web site about Pelagius:
“So writes Bede in his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum about the teachings of Pelagius, a Romano-British monk who flourished between the fourth and fifth centuries AD and taught that salvation could be attained through free will alone, without the redemption of divine grace. An ascetic, Pelagius was distressed by the moral laxity he witnessed in Rome and attributed it to the doctrine of predestination and divine grace promulgated by Augustine of Hippo, who, he felt, was too unforgiving in his insistence that man was tainted by original sin and, without baptism and the grace of God, could not be saved.
Pelagius reasoned that, if one could not be held accountable for one’s deeds and that salvation came only from bestowed grace, then there was no restraint from sin. Rather, he argued, man was a free moral agent, responsible for resisting evil and choosing good. Divine grace only facilitated the impulse to do so…
_______________________________________________________________
NOTE: I purposefully separated the following using elipses:
…Yet, in denying original sin and the redemptive power of divine grace, Pelagius called into question the necessity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ and, in asserting that the essence of religion was righteousness, diminished the tenets of faith and dogma….
_______________________________________________________________
The reason that I separated that was so that no misunderstanding would take place that Pelagius questioned the sacrifice of Jesus, but that others accused him as such.
______________________________________________________________
Continuing:
Pelagius left Rome, having lived there for many years, after it was sacked by the Visigoths in AD 410 and went first to North Africa, where he was confronted by Augustine, and then to Palestine, where he had the support of the bishop of Jerusalem to preach his doctrine. In protesting the helplessness of the individual confronting a predestined divine plan, Pelagianism very well may have been perceived as undermining the social acceptance of imperial and ecclesiastical authority, and permitting the demonstration of social and regional hostility to the Roman church.
Certainly, it was condemned. In a series of treatises and church synods, both Augustine and Jerome sought to refute Pelagius until, finally, in AD 418 a church council declared him to be a heretic. A month later, a rescript of Honorius banished his followers from Italy. That same year, Pelagius, himself, was excommunicated. After this, nothing more is heard of the heresiarch.
_____________________________________________________________
NOTE:
So, both camps think that Pelagius was a heretic, all because he believed in FREE WILL to choose, not believing in Original sin, or either doctrines of grace.
Now, I am not a Pelagian, but I’d rather be in his camp. I have not fully studied him out, so I don’t know where he stands on other CATHOLIC dogma which was passed down to the REFORMERS, whether it be Luther, or Calvin, or any others. But, Augustine is a problem, as you can see. He was a HUGE proponant of Original Sin, and that got passed down to the defecters of Catholicism, as well.
I’m not Catholic, never have been, never will be, but I am not a PROTESTANT, either. I’m not protesting the Catholic Church. I could care less about them. The protestants have Catholic baggage. Both Luther and Calvin passed down Catholic Baggage. They didn’t ditch everything Catholic.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Ed – concerning Arminianism
.
You and Pamela might find a youtube video from “Beyond the Fundamentals” informative.
.
The video is titled: ARMINIUS WAS A CALVINIST
.
In this video – Kevin gives a little summary of the history of Arminius.
.
Although you will find Calvinists arguing against Arminianism quite frequently
The truth – is a large percentage of “Moderate” Calvinism today – is in fact an ARMINIANIZED form of Calvinism.
.
There are numerous Calvinists who are in fact more Arminian in their theology than they are Calvinist.
And there are Calvinist pastors who have mixed congregations
And in order to keep from losing parts of their congregations – they preach an ARMINIANIZED version of Calvinism.
.
So the difference between the two systems is much more shallow than one would think.
br.d,
Actually, ya, I kinda gathered that from a blog website that I think that even you had commented on at one point. The moderator named as Kangaroo something? He does definately distinguish between the two, however. But, for me, I’m just discussing the difference between Prevenient and Irresistable, in which, God must intervene in both cases, which is the similarity between the two that I can definately see, calling both the “ONE” Doctrine of Grace, which can confuse people who believe in either, thinking that it’s the same thing, because it’s called one thing…grace, not of yourselves, lest any man should boast. It’s the “not of yourselves” that both sides got wrong. Faith is definately “of yourself”. The law is WORKS, and works (the law) is the “not of yourselves” being discussed in scripture, not faith. It’s your faith, not an imputed faith. Both sides believe that faith has to be imputed…one side, irresistabley, the other side, preveniently, or, “ENABLING”, BEFORE you can even believe. And that’s got to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in Christianity, on both sides.
Ed
br.d
AH! I see!
.
Yes – there is a difference between “Irresistible” and “Prevenient”
.
In Calvinism- all human functionality is made “IRRESISTIBLE” by the infallible decree.
This is simply the case because – every impulse in the human brain – comes to pass by an infallible decree
That means – every impulse comes to pass within the human brain INFALLIBLY
.
Man is fallible
And it is impossible for that which is fallible to RESIST that which is INFALLIBLE
.
So in Calvinism – all human sins and evils are also IRRESISTIBLE
They have IRRESISTIBLE grace
But they also have IRRESISTIBLE sins and evils.
.
The Armenian today does not embrace EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
So they do not have Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees which make all human functions come to pass IRRESISTIBLY
br.d
That is funny!!! :-]
.
I have often said – Calvinism is not just a theology or a belief system.
It is a way of thinking!!
The Calvinist mind is conditioned to think differently than we NORMALLY think.
.
There is a phenomenon within Calvinism which Calvinists call the “CAGE STAGE”.
.
If you can imagine what it would be like to put a cage over the head of a cat.
You can imagine – that cat is going to trying to get that cage off its head.
It is going to be fighting with that cage – to get it off its head
.
But eventually – when it realizes it cannot get the cage off its head – it will learn to live with it.
.
I believe that is what is going on within that “CAGE STAGE”
The Calvinist mind is being conditioned to accept self-contradictions and double-speak talking-points.
.
A Calvinist can use EXPLICIT language to claim there is no such thing as human AUTONOMY
And then follow that one sentence with a stream of sentences all which logically require some degree of human AUTONOMY.
.
His brain becomes conditioned to flip back and forth between affirming the doctrine and denying it.
And he is totally oblivious to the fact he is doing that.
.
Those are all patterns of mental conditioning.
NOTES FROM THE OXFORD HANDBOOK ON CALVIN AND CALVINISM
Chapter 2: Divine and Human Agency in Calvin’s Institutes
.
-quote
The relationship between sinful/evil events and God’s will, cannot adequately be captured through the language of ‘permission’.
.
-quote
God is *CAUSALLY DETERMINATIVE* of both good and evil.
.
-quote
The key to this account – to understanding its perplexities, and identifying what features of *MEANINGFUL* human action (agency) are at state – is the *NESTING OF INTENTIONS* within a *LAYERING* of divine and human agency.
.
br.d:
1) The divine will is said to have *INTENTIONS* which are *CAUSALLY DETERMINATIVE* and function as the *DETERMINING FACTOR* of every human event and the *DETERMINING FACTOR* of every human impulse which will be granted existence within creation.
.
2) Humans are said to have *INTENTIONS* which incline sinful/evil impulses.
.
3) Man is held responsible for sinful/evil impulses which are granted existence within his brain.
.
4) However man is NOT granted any say in the matter of that which is granted existence within creation.
.
5) Neither is man granted any say in the matter of that which is granted existence or within man’s brain.
.
6) All impulses are made to come to pass infallibly within the human brain. And it is impossible for fallible creatures resist that which is infallible. Thus all sinful/evil impulses are made irresistible to the creature.
.
7) Man is held responsible for that which is fated to infallibly come to pass.
.
CONCLUSION:
Thus man is held responsible for that which he is granted no say, no control, and no alternative.
These are the “perplexities” of what Calvinism classifies as human “agency”.
.
Human “agency” in Calvinism can be best understood as the “agency” of an externally controlled device.