“Why did you believe the gospel, but your friend did not? Are you wiser or smarter or more spiritual or better trained or more humble?”
This is typically one of the first questions a Calvinist will ask a non-Calvinist when attempting to convince them of their doctrine.[1] In fact, when I was a Calvinist, I used this argument more often than any other, and it was quite effective. However, I have come to believe there are at least four significant problems with this line of argumentation:
1) Question Begging Fallacy:
As we have discussed HERE, this is a game of question begging because it presumes a deterministic answer is required. It is tantamount to asking, “What determined the response of you and your friend?” As if something or someone other than the responsible agents themselves made the determination. The question presumes determinism is true and that libertarian free will (self-determination) is not possible. [2]
I believe that the cause of a choice is the chooser (or the cause of a determination is the determiner) and accept the mystery associated with the functioning of that free will in making its own determinations.[3] Now, Calvinists will often challenge my appeal to mystery at this point as if it is a weakness unique to my libertarian worldview. This is a very shortsighted argument, however, which will be made abundantly clear in the next point.
2) Calvinists Ultimately Appeal to the Same Mystery:
While the Calvinist may feel he has the “upper hand” when asking about the “decisive factor” in man’s choice to reject God’s words, the role reverses quite dramatically when the conversation shifts to man’s first choice to reject God’s words. Whether discussing Satan’s first act of rebellion or Adam’s first choice to sin, it becomes quite evident that the Calvinist has painted himself into a corner by denying libertarian free will.
While on the one hand arguing that mankind will always act in accordance with his nature (assuming the nature could not be libertarianly free, mind you), the Calvinist has no rational answer as to why Adam (or Lucifer) chose to rebel. [4] For instance, John Piper openly admits:
How God freely hardens and yet preserves human accountability we are not explicitly told. It is the same mystery as how the first sin entered the universe. How does a sinful disposition arise in a good heart? The Bible does not tell us.”[5]
And RC Sproul similarly teaches,
“But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.”[6]
As you can clearly see, the Calvinist has just “kicked the can down the road,” so to speak, when it comes to appealing to the mystery of free moral will.[7] They eventually appeal to the same mystery that we do, all the while thinking they are taking the higher moral ground by giving God all the credit for the Christian’s choice to repent and trust in Christ. In reality, however, by not accepting the mystery of man’s free will, the Calvinist has created a new mystery that is simply not afforded by the text of scripture.
This problem is made evident by turning the question around and asking this of the Calvinist:
Why has your lost friend continued to hate and reject God?
Most Calvinists do not want to admit that the reprobate of their system ultimately hates and rejects God because God first hated and rejected them. Calvinists would rather focus on the elect who are saved by deterministic means while ignoring the inevitable conclusions about the non-elect who remain damned for the same deterministic reason. In my opinion, this is a dilemma unique to their worldview, not a tension created by the teachings of scripture.
So, the Calvinist rejects the mystery of libertarian freedom only to adopt another even more difficult mystery. One that arguably brings into question the holiness, righteousness and trustworthiness of our God — namely the suggestion that God is implicit in the determination of moral evil, as evidenced by John Calvin’s own teachings:
“…how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission…It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.”[8]
Which mystery is more difficult to swallow? One that seemingly suggests mankind might have some part to play in reconciliation (the bringing together of two parties) or the one that suggests God is the author of evil (that which divided to two parties to begin with)? More importantly, which of these mysteries does the Bible actually afford? (Listen to THIS PODCAST to better understand why a defense of free will is actually a defense of God’s Holiness, not merely an appeal to mystery.)
3) Better by Choice or Divine Decree is Still Better:
Calvinists seem to think there is something morally wrong with admitting that a believer is better than an unbeliever. Of course it is better to believe than it is to “trade the truth of God in for lies.” Whether one believes because they were sovereignly made to do so or simply given the ability to do so freely does not change the fact that believers are doing something “better.” But, as we will discover in the next point, better does not mean worthy of salvation. So, even if the non-Calvinist were to say, “Yes, I’m more humble or smarter,” he would ultimately be saying the exact same thing a Calvinist has to say. The only difference would be that an unbeliever could rightly say to the Calvinist, “How arrogant of you to think that God made you more humble or smarter,” whereas if they said that to the non-Calvinist, we could rightly answer, “No he didn’t, you have no such excuse. You have just as much ability to humble yourself and understand the gospel as I have.”
We (non-Calvinist) are too often accused that we could/would boast in our salvation because we affirm that it is our responsibility to freely respond in faith to the gracious Holy Spirit wrought gospel appeal.
Is this really boast worthy?
We are the ones who teach that anyone can believe the gospel. Why would we boast in doing something anyone is able to do?
It’s the Calvinists who believe this ability is uniquely given to them and not most people. It makes much more sense for a Calvinist to boast in an ability granted to him that has been withheld from most others.
A great singer, for example, is a given a rare gift from birth and can often become proud or boastful due to that unique gift. But if everyone was born able sing that well whenever they wanted, then boasting in that ability would not make any sense. Thus, Calvinism leaves more room for boasting than does our soteriological perspective. (Though I don’t believe true Christians from either soteriological system would boast in such things: SEE HERE)
This speaks to the biblical teaching on the attainability of goodness or righteousness, which we will discuss in the next point.
4) A Decision Does Not Merit Salvation:
What is the underlying motivation for asking the question, “Why you and not another?” The implication seems to be that one who makes the libertarianly free decision to accept the gospel appeal is meriting or more deserving of salvation? As if the decision to repent somehow earns or merits one’s forgiveness.
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. In fact, one could argue that it was weak and pitiful of the son to return home and beg his daddy for a job instead of working his own way out of that pig sty. 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 (Is. 66:2). God gives grace to the humble not because a humble response deserves salvation, but because He is gracious.
Calvinists often conflate man’s choice to confess with God’s choice to forgive while labeling it all “salvation.” They go on to convincingly argue that God is “sovereign over salvation” which actually means “God is as much in control over His own choice to forgive as He is over man’s choice to confess in faith.” It’s difficult to argue with someone who is making the case that God is “in control of salvation” and is “the One who gets all credit for salvation,” but that difficulty only exists due to the conflating of man’s responsibility to believe/confess with God’s gracious choice to save whosoever does so. Of course Salvation is all of God, but that is distinct from man’s responsibility to humbly trust in Him for salvation.
We all affirm that Salvation belongs to the Lord, but that does not mean sin and the responsibility to repent from sin does not belong to the sinner.
Clearly scripture calls us to humility and there is nothing which suggests we cannot respond in humility when confronted by the powerful clear revelation of God’s convicting life-giving truth through the law and the gospel. Consider what our Lord taught us in Luke 18:10-14
“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Did the tax collector deserve to go home justified because of his humble admission of guilt? Of course not. If that were so, then his confession would have merited his salvation and there would be no reason for Christ’s death to atone for his sin. He went home justified because of God’s grace and provision alone! Maintaining man’s libertarianly free responsibility to repent and believe does not negate the truth that salvation is completely and totally of God alone.
Throughout the scriptures we see examples of God “finding favor” in believing individuals (Job, Enoch, Noah, Abram, etc), but these men, like all of humanity, still fell short of God’s glory and were unrighteous according to the demands of God’s law. They needed a savior. They needed redemption and reconciliation. Even those who believe the truth of God’s revelation deserve eternal punishment for their sin.
What must be understood is that no one was righteous according to the demands of the law. However, that does NOT mean that all people are unable to believe God’s revealed truth so as to be credited as righteous by God’s grace. Paul taught that no one was righteous in Romans 3, yet he turns around and declares in the very next chapter that, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3).
How can that be? Has Paul contradicted himself? First he declares that no one is righteous and then he tells us that Abraham was righteous? Which is it?
Paul is drawing the distinction between righteousness by works (Rm. 3:10-11) and righteousness by grace through faith (Rm. 3:21-24). The former is unattainable but the latter has always been very much attainable by anyone, which again, is why ALL ARE “WITHOUT EXCUSE!” (Rm. 1:20)
God can show mercy on whom ever he wants to show mercy! We happen to know, based on Biblical revelation, that God wants to show mercy to those who humbly repent in faith, which is man’s responsibility not God’s!
If you wait on God to effectually humble you, it will be too late.
1 Peter 5:5-6: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
Isaiah 66:2: “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word.
James 4:10: “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”
2 Kings 22:19: “Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curse and be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord.”
2 Chronicles 12:7: When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah: “Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak.
2 Chronicles 12:12: Because Rehoboam humbled himself, the Lord’s anger turned from him, and he was not totally destroyed.
Psalm 18:27: You save the humble but bring low those whose eyes are haughty.
Psalm 25:9: He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.
Psalm 147:6: The Lord sustains the humble but casts the wicked to the ground.
Proverbs 3:34: He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed.
Zephaniah 2:3: Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord’s anger.
Matthew 18:4: Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:3: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 23:12: For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Luke 1:52: He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.
Luke 14:11: For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Luke 18:14: “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
James 4:6: But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”
The Bible Brodown guys discuss this question HERE in a great podcast.
[1] John Piper said, “More specifically, I rarely meet Christians who want to take credit for their conversion. There is something about true grace in the believer’s heart that makes us want to give all the glory to God. So, for example, if I ask a believer how he will answer Jesus’s question at the last judgment, “Why did you believe on me, when you heard the gospel, but your friends didn’t, when they heard it?” very few believers answer that question by saying: “Because I was wiser or smarter or more spiritual or better trained or more humble.” Most of us feel instinctively that we should glorify God’s grace by saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” In other words, we know intuitively that God’s grace was decisive in our conversion. That is what we mean by irresistible grace.” (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Grace)
[2] Libertarian Free Will is “the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.” See: https://soteriology101.com/2016/05/11/philosophical-reflections-on-free-will/
[3] Question begging is the logical fallacy of presuming true the very argument up for debate. By asking what determined a man’s choice, the questioner is presuming someone or something other than that man made the determination, thus presuming true the foundation for deterministic logic (i.e. “a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws [or Divine decree].” Merriam-Webster Dictionary). While a determiner may state reasons or influential factors for his or her own determination (i.e. I chose to overeat because it tastes so good) that does not mean the factors listed effectually caused the determination (i.e. the taste of food determined the agent’s choice to overeat). The agent alone made the determination based on the factors taken into consideration and deliberated upon. To presume without proof that something or someone outside the agent himself made the determination (i.e. was the “decisive factor”) is question begging.
[4] On the one hand, Calvinists argue that mankind always chooses according to their greatest inclination which is ultimately determined by their God given nature, yet on the other hand they affirm that Adam “was perfectly free from any corruptions or sinful inclinations,” and that he “had no sinful inclinations to hurry him on to sin; he did it of his own free and mere choice” Jonathan Edwards, ‘All God’s Methods Are Most Reasonable’, in Sermons and Discourses: 1723-1729, ed. by Kenneth P. Minkema, Works 14 (1997): 168.)
How does the affirmation of Adam’s freedom to sin or refrain from sin not violate the Calvinists own definition of human will and choice? For Adam to choose to sin he must violate the law of his own nature, as defined by the Calvinistic systematic.
[5]John Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/the-hardening-of-pharaoh-and-the-hope-of-the-world))
[6] RC Sproul, Chosen By God, p.31
[8] John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11
Leighton,
This was a sound and excellent argument and frankly one that I think reduces the Calvin/non-Calvin debate to its most divided root cause and topic of importance. The nature of God’s Character. I say this because I absolutely agree with you that Humility is a characteristic that man has choice over. Plenty of places you cited mention the emphasis of Man (not God) needing to humble himself. Not safe himself either for having humbled himself. But the choice of humbling one’s self strikes to a very important element that also speaks to the nature of God and this debate.
All the characteristics of God are important in cohesively understanding who he is, as best we can this side of eternity that is.
But the observation i have made of Calvinists is that they hold the “Holiness” virtue of God’s character over and against any of his other characters. Particularly, even his “loving” nature. And this is where I find the debate needed acknowledgment and careful introspection.
God is holy, but “God is Love” (1John). When it comes to God doing what mysterious works he does in the heart of the hardened or in the heart of the called he must be doing it on the basis of Love as it is the nature of who he is. But that brings up a very specific nuance when it comes to the individual responding to the appeal to repent. Love from scriptures (1Corinthians, Philemon and sooo many places elsewhere) strongly defines itself as not being rude, not seeking self, not being something that obligatorily forces itself on others, or demands itself. Onesimus’s free return of philemon, giving your gifts to God not out of grudging complain or obligatorily but out of a cheerful and self-donating heart. one could go on and on.
I’m sure you systematic guys are likely to feed off what I just wrote like piranha with contending zeal, but my simple point is that if God is loving, If he desire’s us to choose him freely (because he is NOT nervously pacing heaven alone and desperately needing validation) then man’s desire to say I am not able to do anything about my condition but I acknowledge my utter sin, and I autonomously and self-donatedly give you myself is NOT a thing a person has any boast in. To boast about being Humble actually denies the nature about what humility is in the first place. What’s the permutation of this for the Calvinist that threatens him…?
Is it something like this kind of dialogue, “Hey dude, how did you come to Christ? OH man let me tell you. I just took a look at my miserable life and how utterly empty, self-centered, ungoverned, basically evil I was and I realized you know I just need to humble myself and if I do the hard work of humbling myself then I know God is required to deservingly accept me.” Ummm news flash that was just a description of self-righteousness regardless of how people use phrasing. Instead that description sounds a lot like the Pharisee scripture noted above.
I find it funny that Calvinist don’t have an answer about Adam’s choice to sin though he was perfectly sinless in nature and will. Here’s a simple answer. God made man able to choose or reject him because the “insoluble nature of love is distinct in that it is the other’s CHOICE FREELY to walk in harmony with another or not”. God wasn’t surprised that Adam would sin either, but he had to make him able to freely choose to want to serve and love God back. If he made Adam incapable of having a choice he would have been deterministically ordered to never sin. Basically a robot. Which honestly Calvinist doctrine reduces its arguments to this base view anyway.
But if this is the case then why does anyone argue about any of this stuff. It seriously would be a ridiculous endeavor. What I’m saying is, if everything is deterministic with no choice of self donation to a creator mattering because ultimately God is only working strangely, unknowingly and secretively to have force his hand then fate of all kinds is God’s actual secretive doing. So sin is as much his choice, in fact all his choice then it is any of ours. Of course I don’t believe this but that’s the logic of Hyper Calvinism.
Also, here is really a simple thing that I seriously ask everyone of you guys reading this. Look at the person of Jesus Christ. If God so “loved” the world that he gave his son to save us.. Do any of you seriously see that form, action and demeanor of Love in Jesus’s every choice and motive ever dominating others hearts and demanding others because he was desparate for his “holiness” to be respected, bowed to or regarded as an imperative requirement. NO.
In fact the argument that Calvinists have that justify why holiness matters the most is because God deserves if not demands his Glory. But what is God’s idea of Glory? He doesn’t need man’s accolades to be Glorious. Here is Glory for you. Imagine the Creator of the universe although deserving acknowledgment for his unmatched splendor of goodness, beauty and charity becoming in nature the very thing he created in a gentle kind appeal to accept him for having made us with autonomy to reject him with our “free will”. For after all if he didn’t make us with free will we would neither reject him, but we also would neither respond to him freely. Ok so what does this mean???
Well here is the motive of God’s heart. The word says “he has consigned all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all”. I think God wanted the experience of free will being quite beautiful from the position of man seeing how far choice had led him from relationship with him. You can’t know necessarily how Good a thing is without contrast and perhaps having lost that thing. There is more Glory in the nature of God by the distance he will travel to choose us when we reject him then if he made us never to freely desire him back. He must savor and value the choice the believer has when they finally give themselves away, not in boasting but in nature being made in the same image as their creator saying receive me I am lost. But it is the sinner who confesses it, woo’ed him or her, made unimaginable means of circumstance to reach out to them. They must give themselves over, freely, for Love is only respected as love at all if it is freely given.
in the last sentence I meant to say,”Whether it was God who Woo’ed him or her……
Hi David
I really appreciated this post.
And I also agree with you how-be-it in a slightly different way on one point you made.
You gave this insightful observation:
-quote:
“But the observation i have made of Calvinists is that they hold the “Holiness” virtue of God’s character over and against any of his other characters.”
For me its not actually Holiness – but Sovereignty – that Calvinists place at the top of their totem-pole of divine attributes.
Blessings and thanks for your post!
Indeed…. good eye br.d.
If it were Holiness above all else they would not be constantly implying that God is the author of all things—even sin, rape, torture, etc. That aint very holy.
It is indeed His Power that they emphasize, dealt with in their personal definition of sovereignty. But power makes sense and Calvin wielded it mercilessly. River-dunking or stake-burning anyone? So that fits perfectly for them.
In Salvation the Gospel message uses the law to bring light to our condition of sin, helplessness, hopelessly lost, bankrupt and unable to merit salvation or forgiveness mush less Love BUT God in His mercy, grace and His Agape Love has provided the full payment…His Condition is simply agree with Him that you are helplessly lost, bankrupt and do not merit even mercy then depend on HIM (Faith) that HE has already done it on your behalf. We come empty handed and depend on His Supply (Faith). How can that be construed as MERIT? It can’t ! Even though there are things about Spurgeon I disagree with when he illustrates Faith it is very much in line with Provisionalism.
“Faith which receives Christ is as simple an act as when a child receives an apple from you, because you hold it out and promise to give him the apple if he comes for it. The belief and the receiving relate only to an apple; but they make up precisely the same act as the faith which deals with eternal salvation. What the child’s hand is to the apple, that your faith is to the perfect salvation of Christ. The child’s hand does not make the apple, nor improve the apple, nor deserve the apple; it only takes it; and faith is chosen by God to be the receiver of salvation, because it does not pretend to create salvation, nor to help in it, but it is content humbly to receive it. “Faith is the tongue that begs pardon, the hand which receives it, and the eye which sees it; but it is not the price which buys it”
Spurgeon speaks of his journey to Faith like this:
“Oh, the many times I have wished that the preacher would tell me something to do to be saved! Gladly would I have done it, if it had been possible. If he had said, ‘Take off your shoes and stockings and run to John o’ Groats,’ I would not even have gone home first, but would have started off that very night if I might win salvation. How often have I thought that if he had said, ‘Bare your back to the scourge and take fifty lashes,’ I would have said, ‘Here I am. Come along with your whip and beat as hard as you please, so long as I can obtain peace and rest, and get rid of my sin.’ Yet the simplest of all matters—believing in Christ crucified, accepting His finished salvation, being nothing and letting Him be everything, doing nothing, but trusting to what He has done—I could not get hold of it.”
NOW most Calvinist’s don’t like how Spurgeon makes Faith as something Non-meritorious.
GraceAdict,
Spurgeon (like Piper) contradicts himself in dozens of his messages.
I have listed dozens of his non-Calvinist sayings elsewhere, but this is a good one, thanks. It shows that he was not “dead” (incapable, blind, a God-hater) until the second before he was converted. No, he, like Cornelius, Lydia, and even many in Athens were reaching out to their Creator God.
What they were doing was not enough….. but it certainly was not “being dead”.
GraceAdict writes, ‘NOW most Calvinist’s don’t like how Spurgeon makes Faith as something Non-meritorious.”
Calvinists make faith non-meritorious saying that it is gift from God and not something that a person is born with.
Absolutely true…not corpse like dead… It is interesting that everyone has faith even the unsaved they are simply placing their faith in something or someone other than God and His Word… The Atheist believes Darwin. People can and do believe (have faith in) a lie. Notice in v 11 below, after rejecting the truth they “believe” a lie — same word that brings salvation if placed in the right object. Faith is not unique to Christians the OBJECT of our Faith is unique – Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. Same greek word in v 11 and 12
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
What I find with Most Calvinist is they are really double-minded. Holding on to two opinions. In the first hand they Hold TULIP, they actually hold TULIP with greater commitment than anything else BUT in the other hand they really do hold the WORD and, at times they just can’t help but say what the WORD actually says. BUT most of the time they are trying to make the WORD agree with TULIP their 1st commitment. So they have to introduce: 1. New Definitions to Words 2. Create new terms 3. Appeal to “mystery” when even they can’t escape the plain meaning of text which obviously contradictions their TULIP. 4. However, Some times we can catch them teaching what the WORD actually says. I rejoice when that happens… I only wish it would happen more often.
GraceAdict
What I find with Most Calvinist is they are really double-minded. Holding on to two opinions.
br.d
Bulls-eye! You hit it perfectly! :-]
GraceAdict writes, ‘It is interesting that everyone has faith even the unsaved they are simply placing their faith in something or someone other than God and His Word…”
The faith that the unsaved place someone else is not the faith that Paul speaks of when he says, ” faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ,” or “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Calvinists are right to distinguish that faith conveyed through the gospel from that human faith of which you speak. You can complain that Calvinists have made a new definition of faith, and thereby reject it, but your philosophy then becomes heretical.
It is the OBJECT of ones Faith/Belief that makes the difference. Faith in the Gospel comes from hearing the Gospel.
Notice below the exact same greek word is used for Believing a Lie as is used for Believing the Truth that saves…. The object of ones Faith is critical thing.
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because They Refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may BELIEVE what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not BELIEVE the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Notice above in the very same sentence the greek word used for Believing what is False and Believing what is True is the exact same word. It is also the same word used below. Nothing different. Same greek word below as well. Believe a Lie or Believe in Him and have eternal life.
Joh 3:15-16 that whoever BELIEVES in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him should not perish but have eternal life.
I realize for the “TULIP – Calvinist worldview” to hold together it requires Redefining a host of Biblical terms that is Calvinism but that is NOT proper interpretation of scripture. What good is it to say you believe in Sola Scriptura and then proceed to redefine the very WORDS of scripture. You can make the bible support anything if you do that… Absolutely anything. You can even make God the Author of Evil. This is a very dangerous path to be on.
GA,
Well said.
Even just the one verse would do….
2 Th 2:10 They refused to love the truth and so be saved.
———-
In theory, you cannot “refuse” something that is not offered. Calvinists are clear that unbelievers are not “refusing” since the offer is not even being made. (i.e. If Christ was “really offering” they would irresistibly come). Once again Calvinist contradicting direct Scripture.
That is the same idea with my post asking how Calvinists explain that Christ was “Despised and Rejected”? Despised….yes. But not rejected, since (according to them) He was never offered to them.
FOH writes, “Calvinists are clear that unbelievers are not “refusing” since the offer is not even being made.”
You must do this on purpose. FOH formerly mingled with Calvinists, so he knows that Calvinists believe the offer of the gospel goes into all the world. Per 1 Corinthians, “we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Why is it that the gospel is power to the “called” ” It is because they “hear” the gospel (having previously been born again) and receive faith. Christ is always rejected by those who have no faith. As Dr. Flowers has argued, it is not whether the gospel is offered but whether people are able to accept the offer that is at issue.
If FOH is so certain that Calvinism is wrong, why does he keep distorting Calvinist theology? Very suspicious. Wake up, FOH!!
FOH
“Calvinists are clear that unbelievers are not “refusing” since the offer is not even being made.”
jtleosala
December 10, 2018 at 9:45 pm
“Non-Elect were not misled because the legitimate offer of the gospel was not intended for them”
br.d
Excellent job with that br.d!
JTL admits what the rest dance around. They say “external call” and “internal call”
Meaning…He is externally calling everyone but only allowing (“internally calling”) the elect.
To-mat-to, to-mah-to. They say He is calling everyone and His call is irresistible…. but not that offer…only the “internal” call offer.
You cant make this stuff up!
Yes isn’t it amazing! – making stuff up is the Calvinists primary past-time.
You know how they say – “bad company promotes bad manners”.
Some Calvinists are so prolific at making stuff up – they remind me of religious con-artists.
The interesting thing is how they can make up stuff out of the blue – and do it without blinking!
Assuming people are simply naive enough to “believe every word”.
GraceAdict writes, “It is the OBJECT of ones Faith/Belief that makes the difference. Faith in the Gospel comes from hearing the Gospel….Notice above in the very same sentence the greek word used for Believing what is False and Believing what is True is the exact same word.”
You make “faith” and “belief” the same thing and then recognize that one faith/belief is true and one faith/belief is false. This is the same basic point the Calvinist makes. There is a faith/belief derived from the gospel and this is true faith/belief. There is also a faith/belief not derived from the gospel that is false. That’s fine – that’s the essential point on which we both agree.
Then, “What good is it to say you believe in Sola Scriptura and then proceed to redefine the very WORDS of scripture.”
Given that we both understand that there is a true and a false faith/belief, I don’t see the problem with Calvinism separating one from the other using different terms to make arguments easier to understand. You seem to have a problem with this. Such is life. Your position on faith/belief is no different than the Calvinist view from what you describe in your comment.
As a non-confrontational peaceful Calvinist, I’m curious to know how one would answer these questions:
If anyone were given the choice to be saved or to not be saved, what would compel anyone to choose the latter (to NOT be saved)? Why would anyone in his right mind not just give in and accept God’s gift?
What about people who never hear the gospel and never know that there even *is* a choice? (I’ve heard people say that it isn’t fair that God would willingly save some but not others for no other reason but His sovereign will; but how is it fair that someone is damned when he is totally unconscious of his sin and thus the offer of grace?)
br.d
Hello Gena and welcome
Let me address your questions
Gena:
If anyone were given the choice to be saved or to not be saved, what would compel anyone to choose the latter (to NOT be saved)?
br.d
Of course that is the key difference between Calvinism – and NON-Calvinism
In Calvinism – humans are not granted a choice in the matter of anything.
Because a *TRUE* choice requires a minimum of more than one option to exist and be available to choose – in order to constitute a choice.
.
And in Calvinism – no such condition exists within creation.
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – for every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION.
And the creature is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
.
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed. Thus in Calvinism – ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation for humans to choose between.
.
In Calvinism – Adam did not have a choice between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] was CONTRARY to the decree.
And that which is CONTRARY to the decree is not granted existence within the domain of creation.
.
So a critical difference between Calvinism and NON-Calvinism is the fact that in Calvinism humans are not granted a choice in the matter of anything.
.
Every Calvinist lives moment by moment – within a constant stream of infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of reality.
The Calvinist is given the *PERCEPTION* that ALTERNATIVES exist for him/her to choose from moment to moment
But Calvin’s god knows those ALTERNATIVES do not exist.
So a Calvinist lives out his/her moment by moment life – experiencing one infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTION* after another
.
Gena:
Why would anyone in his right mind not just give in and accept God’s gift?
.
br.d
Because people are human and humans make mistakes.
.
Gena:
What about people who never hear the gospel and never know that there even *is* a choice?
.
br.d
Be careful now!
Cuz you know in Calvinism – there is no such thing as a human being granted a choice.
.
Gena:
(I’ve heard people say that it isn’t fair that God would willingly save some but not others for no other reason but His sovereign will;
.
br.d
So we first need to establish what “save some” means in Calvinism
In Calvinism what are people actually being saved from?
.
Lets take a look at that:
Per the doctrine of decrees – Calvin’s god – as the divine potter of Romans 9 – has two provisions for mankind
.
His first and foremost provision – is to create the vast majority of individuals throughout human history – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
His secondary provision – is to save a few individuals – from his primary provision.
So in Calvinism – people are not being saved from themselves.
They are being saved from Calvin’s god’s INTENTION for them to be created for eternal torment for his good pleasure.
.
Gena:
But how is it fair that someone is damned when he is totally unconscious of his sin and thus the offer of grace?)
.
br.d
Gena- – you must know – that in Calvinism – there is no *REAL* offer of grace given to those who are infallibly decreed
created and designs for eternal torment in the lake of fire for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
.
In Calvinism – any offer that is offered to the NON-elect is an FAKE offer.
.
blessings!
br.d
Welcome Gena! – I think you are assuming by saying, “given the choice to be saved or to not be saved”, that the person has already been previously convinced they are lost and convinced that the offer of this salvation is a real one. Is that true? If so, then you will need to back up and think about what led that person to that point, and to consider also if they were free earlier to stop following that leading, which brought them to that point.
If you believe [Jhn 1:9 NKJV] “That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world”, and the number of other verses that teach the same thing, then you believe that God gives sufficient light to everyone who has ever lived to start leading them to that point of decision (leaving aside for the moment the question of infants or imbeciles who die). But many do freely reject that light while they are being sufficiently drawn by it, and others freely do not.
Yes, it would be unfair, and unjust, of God to damn anyone, just based on a supposed “sovereign will” to create them with no ability to seek, and also giving them no light about Him and about their sin (Rom 1, 2) to aid them in seeking. Praise His Name that He is not unjust! [Rom 2:4 NKJV] Or do you [O man] despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
Yes, you certainly do need to backup. But the Libertarian never seems to want to backup to the conditions that formed a person’s thinking, e.g. environment, culture, conditioning, age, etc. All the external elements which determine a person’s character and future free will choices, not to mention the biblical fact that man is born sinful. Remember that LFW is incompatible with external influence.
LFW simply has no answer to the fact that there are people groups and individuals—including infants and the mentally challenged—throughout history who die with no revelation of the true God. And because they have no answer they simply deny that it exists!
Is the definition of free will simply multiple options? If one is forced to choose from 2 unwanted options is this free will? LFW is quite inconsistent when it come to their definition of free will—in fact they have no consistent agreed upon definition. If all that free will is is available choice than there is no difference between that and compitilbilist free will, which is define as: “The ability to choose between a range of options, each of which is consistent with one’s nature.”
Both the Calvinist Westminster and 1689 London Baptist confessions of faith teach that man’s will is free but he has a sin nature due to the fall. Calvinism’s foundation is scripture. Therefore to say that Adam or other biblical persons do not have choice would be unbiblical.
The god of the Libertarian is subject to chance and the sinful machinations of man.
When a Libertarian is asked about people who have never heard they will often sidestep the question by pointing out how bad Calvinism is. And, in fact, free will theism is a negative theology in that its main argument is that because Calvinism is wrong LFW must be right!
Well Mike, the Determinist never wants to consider that choices can be determined by a will freely after a person’s spirit is freely evaluating and even developing its own individual thoughts and feelings about available options.
We may never agree, but LFW is not “incompatible with external influence,” but like Adam’s sinning, it is not always coerced by external influence to only one outcome that the person only falsely “thinks”/”feels” was freely made between multiple options.
I’ve shared before my view on infants and imbeciles who die. There are even reformed theologians who taught after death opportunity to choose to believe being provided for them.
And Paul confirms everyone else has “heard” sufficiently to be judged according to the gospel. I personally believe the Scripture is clear that each is enabled by God’s gracious light to believe He exists, and to seek Him and His mercy. What keeps them from then calling out, “God be merciful to me, a sinner”?
Mike,
Remember that LFW is incompatible with external influence
.
br.d
Hello Mike – nice to see you again!
.
That is not a necessary conclusion.
It would be accurate to say a Libertarian choice is not solely and elusively “Determined” by an external influence.
But to be “incompatible” with external influence would not be realistic.
.
For example – take CIRCUMSTANCE_A in which external influences are such that 3 options are available vs CIRCUMSTANCE_B in which 5 options are available.
.
Obviously within CIRCUMSTANCE_A a Libertarian choice is going to have to be “Compatible” with the 3 options which are available. Whereas within CIRCUMSTANCE_B a Libertarian choice is going to have to be “Compatible” with the 5 options which are available.
.
The bottom line of course in all of this Mike – is that a Libertarian Choice – is the very choice you always automatically assume your brain is granted – every time you assume your brain has the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
.
If a Libertarian Choice does not exist for your brain – then your brain does not have the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any mater.
.
And because the process of discerning whether any matter is TRUE or FALSE entails making a choice between TRUE and FALSE on that matter – it follows – if your brain does not have the ability to make a choice between TRUE and FALSE – then your brain has no ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
.
Obviously – you believe your brain does have the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE.
Therefore – it follows – the function you assume your brain has – is by definition – a Libertarian choice.
Of course I would not expect you to acknowledge that.
But it is nevertheless the case.
.
blessings!
br.d
Gena – here is a question for you.
Does Calvin’s god “Save” anyone?
.
The TRUE answer is NO
And here is why
.
1) In Calvinism there are people who are created to be ELECT and people who are created to be NON-ELECT
2) Those who are created to be ELECT are *INFALLIBLY* ELECT and their DESTINY is *INFALLIBLE*
3) Those who are created to be NON-ELECT are *INFALLIBLY* NON-ELECT and their DESTINY is *INFALLIBLE*
4) The ELECT cannot be “Saved” from eternal torment – because it was never a reality or a possibility for them.
5) The NON-ELECT cannot be “Saved” from eternal torment – because Calvin’s god cannot countervail his decree
.
IN SHORT
In Calvinism – we simply have individuals being created at the foundation of the world for a DESTINY which is *INFALLIBLE* and cannot be altered. You cannot “Save” something from an infallible decree.
.
CONCLUSION
In Calvinism – there is *REALLY* no such thing as people being “Saved”
Every person who is created – is given an *INFALLIBLE DESTINY* at the foundation of the world.
And a person cannot be “Saved” from that which is *INFALLIBLE*
Brian, setting aside the free will question, do you honestly believe that the native peoples of the world outside the middle east during the times of the patriarchs had the equal revelation and opportunities as God chosen people Israel?
The issue Mike is never “equal” revelation… but “sufficient” revelation. Do you “honestly believe” God does not give everyone sufficient knowledge of Him and their sin so that they become able to seek Him and His mercy? [Rom 2:4 NKJV] Or do you [O man] despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
Brian
Do you “honestly believe” God does not give everyone sufficient knowledge of Him and their sin so that they become able to seek Him and His mercy?
.
br.d
The answer to that question for the Calvinist is absolutely NO.
Calvin’s god in fact – is a deity of deception.
He determines *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of reality and of himself – will be the predominant perceptions which will infallibly come to pass within the brains of *ALL* human beings including Calvinists.
.
The majority of Calvinists – he creates as CHAFF believers
And he gives those Calvinist CHAFF believers a *FALSE SENSE* of salvation.
Those Calvinists are decreed to infallibly go through their lives with a constant stream of infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of salvation.
.
They are not granted the ability to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.
.
John Calvin
-quote
He gives them a *SENSE* such as can be felt without the spirit of adoption
He illumines them *FOR A TIME* to partake of it – and then he strikes them with greater blindness
.
These Calvinists are predestined to wake up in the lake of fire for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
It is at that point – that they will realize they were created by Calvin’s divine potter of Romans 9 – to be CHAFF believers.
.
So there are thousands of Calvinist wandering around today accusing others of being NON-elect.
While they themselves have been deceived by Calvin’s god – unable to discern the fact that they are NON-elect.
.
The reason they accuse others – is because Calvin’s god decreed “Accusation” impulses to come to pass within their brains.
They have NO SAY and NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within their brains.
.
Creating Calvinists who have NO SAY and NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within their brains – is the way Calvin’s god glorifies himself.
.
Isn’t Calvin’s god wonderful! :-]
Sorry Brian, but for the free will theist “sufficient” isn’t sufficient. God can not violate man’s free will. If He does He is unfair. If God determines or manipulates man’s situations in any way that might force his decision making this would be Determinism. (This is why Molinism can be defined as “divine entrapment.”) For the Libertarian God must provide all men with an equal opportunity to make a free will decision for salvation (“God is no respecter of persons” Acts 10:34-35). God was only allowed to harden Pharaoh’s heart after he had hardened his own heart a number of times. But even this doesn’t really work under the LFW system because to violate the free will of someone especially at the end of their life—even if they have sinned continually throughout their life—would be unfair! The best example of this is the thief on the cross who repented just before he died. Imagine if God had hardened the thief’s heart due to his life of sin. Even in heaven man must retain the ability and freedom to sin and reject God or he becomes a mere robot. Even in heaven sin must always remain a possibility according to the free will theist.
Sorry Mike. We will continue to disagree on the definition of LFW, for you tie to its definition, imo, unnecessary and unbiblical ideas.
Of course God can justly “violate man’s free will” on occasions, just like a Father with a child, “determines and manipulates… situations in a way that might force” one outcome. That is not “unfair” imo. But then in other situations God allows full opportunity for the LFW to choose between available options.
You state “equal opportunity must be provided”. Can you give me a scholarly definition of LFW that you found that concurs with that idea as necessary to the definition of LFW. I haven’t read such.
Yes, for God to be just, sufficient opportunity, not equal, must be provided for each person to be enabled to freely choose to seek God and His mercy at some point in their lives. Pharoah had that opportunity, imo, before he was raised up to become Pharoah. And, yes, both thieves on the cross at least had that opportunity before they died.
Brian,
I don’t say this often, but GOOD POINT on the “raised up…”
Exodus 9:16
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.
Those words were directed to the Pharaoh. However, mercy is not SOUGHT OUT here. But, I believe that mercy is GIVEN…DUE TO God raising him up TO SHEW GOD’S POWER, hence, Romans 9.
Ed Chapman
Sorry Mike, your contorted view of LFW is not working for most of us here. God imposes on people all the time with shipwrecks, talking donkeys, or sudden death. He is awesome and does what He wants to do, all while granting us free choices.
Brian, you accuse me of apply “unnecessary and unbiblical ideas” to LFW. This is unfair, one-sided and a double-standard. It seems that you, and your fellow bloggers, are so wise that they completely understand Calvinism, Compatiblism, Determinism and all the philosophical implications. And I’m so ignorant of a true meaning of LFW. Fine, then give me a simple one sentence biblical definition of LFW.
Here’s a definition of Compatiblist free will: “The ability to choose between a range of options, each of which is consistent with one’s nature.” Is this definition biblical? No. There is no philosophical definition of free will in scripture. Biblical free will is simply the ability to choose—and this is not LFW it is just “free will” which Calvinists agree exist (see The Westminster Confession).
This is a challenge. I don’t see an agreed upon understanding and definition of LFW from the people on this blog. I don’t think most of the bloggers defending LFW have read the philosophic literature. So prove me wrong! Give me a simple one sentence definition of LFW.
I thought Mike that I gave this all to you before and you didn’t accept it. But here it is again. The definition is right there in the verse.
1. A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.
2. If a libertarian freewill decision is defined as made “having no necessity” by one who “has power over his own will” and the Scripture gives one example of such a decision existing, then a libertarian free will exists to make that libertarian freewill decision.
3. The Scripture gives such an example in 1Cor 7:37.
4. Therefore libertarian free will exists.
1 Corinthians 7:37 NKJV — Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, 👉having no necessity, but has power over his own will👈, and has so determined in his heart that he will….
I would like to see sound reasoning for rejecting the freewill definition clearly given in 1Cor 7:37.
The key phrase is – μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος – “not having necessity but authority he has over the individual desire”. How that is not seen as a very clear and appropriate definition of LFW being defined by Paul as the foundation for the decision making of this circumstance is beyond me.
I can only see theological prejudice as the reason for rejecting Paul’s confirmation that a LFW decision can be made in this circumstance. And if in this circumstance, then that LFW truly exists for other circumstances is a reasonable inference.
The context is a father’s free will in giving or not giving his daughter in marriage. It is a clear example of a choice of a Libertarian free will to make as seen by the clear statement – “having no necessity, but has power over his own will.”
For more see my article – https://soteriology101.com/2017/07/24/freewill-as-taught-in-scripture/
The term “libertarian” does not appear in scripture. You are unable to provide a simple definition of LFW that would distinguish it from simple free will.
1. “A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.” In other words LFW is LFW. This is circular and meaningless.
2. “If a libertarian freewill decision is defined as…” “IF” it is but what “IF” it is not! “having no necessity by one who has power over his own will…” Calvinists nor Compatibilists argue that being forced into a decision or choice is free will. The kind of choice options illustrated in “Sophie’s Choice” by William Styron and “The Test” by Sylvain Neuvel are not true free will choices—as far as I’m concerned. But some Libertarians are confused by this as the choice come from the internal person.
3. “he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will…” Again, Calvinism is not Hard Determinism and does not define compulsion or force as free will. But man has a sin nature and he often stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, choices that are sinful and evil (John 3:19). Here are quotes from Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor. 7 “…he teaches that it were good for every one to abstain from connection with a woman, provided it was in his power to do so.” and “…that it is indeed expedient and profitable for a man not to be bound to a wife, provided he can do otherwise.” Of course, 1 Cor. 7 is not about free will—a better example would be Isaiah 10 but Libertarians are confused by this passage because it doesn’t fit nicely into their system, and consequently you never mention it in your free will article.
“How that is not seen as a very clear and appropriate definition of LFW being defined by Paul as the foundation for the decision making of this circumstance is beyond me.” Yes it certainly is beyond you because you have a shallow view of free will. Compatibilism does not negate “decision making” or “choice,” but it does understand that the will is control by a myriad of external factors and circumstances.
We do agree that theological prejudice is the problem. Well, I’m finished and I give you the last word if you want it.
Mike
A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.
.
br.d
That depends on how one defines a “Libertarian Free Will”
.
If one defines a “Libertarian Free Will” as a will which is *ALWAYS* Libertarian Free – then that would not be correct – because it could be the case that a Libertarian Choice could be made by a will that is NOT *ALWAYS* Libertarian Free.
.
Where do you come up with these things Mike????
.
A Libertarian Choice – is simply a choice that *YOU* and not someone or something external to you determines.
It is a Choice that is NOT made *FOR* you
But rather is made *BY* you.
It is a decision which is *UP TO* YOU rather than being “UP TO” someone or something external to you.
.
However:
There is a necessary condition for the function of “Choice”
There must be a minimum of TWO options from which to select in order to constitute – having a “Choice”
There must be more than one option available to you.
Otherwise – there is no “Choice” for you to make.
.
For example – you fall out of an airplane
Do you have a “Choice” in the matter of whether you will go up or you will go down?
NO – in that circumstance – you are only granted one option.
The choice to go up does not exist for you because the option to go up does not exist for you.
It is logically impossible to choose something that does not exist for you to choose.
.
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed
All ALTERNATIVES are infallibly excluded by the decree.
Therefore ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation – for humans to choose between.
.
In Calvinism – Adam did not have a “Choice” between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT]
1) Was CONTRARY to the decree and therefore not granted existence
2) Was an ALTERNATIVE from that which was decreed – the existence of which would falsify the decree – which cannot be falsified.
.
Additionally – the impulse within Adams brain to [NOT EAT] would be CONTRARY to the decree – and also NOT granted existence.
.
Thus only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN IMPULSE was granted existence within Adam’s brain.
As before when we discussed this, others now have this context thread to see our two views and decide which is more faithful to the Scriptures. Thanks for the conversation. All the best!
Mike
Biblical free will is simply the ability to choose…..
.
br.d
Which does not exist for humans in Calvinism (aka Determinism) because:
1) A necessary condition for a “Choice” is the availability of more than one option from which to choose – in order to constitute a choice.
.
Dictionary.com
CHOICE:
An act or instance of choosing; selection: an ALTERNATIVE
.
The Free Dictionary
CHOICE
1. The act of choosing; selection – a NUMBER OR VARIETY from which to choose
.
Collins Dictionary
CHOICE
If there is a choice of THINGS there are SEVERAL OF THEM and you can choose the one you want.
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from A RANGE OF THINGS
.
Oxford Learners Dictionary
CHOICE
An act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities;
.
Longman Dictionary
CHOICE
if you have a choice, you can choose BETWEEN SEVERAL THINGS
.
KJV Dictionary
CHOICE:
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
.
In Calvinism – for every event [X] – NO ALTERNATIVE of [X] is granted existence within the domain of creation – in which humans exist.
.
Therefore – in Calvinism – ALTERNATIVES do not exist – for humans to choose between.
It is logically impossible for you to choose an option which does not exist for you to choose.
.
Therefore – if follows – in Calvinism – there is no such thing as humans being granted CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
For every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION and humans are granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
.
Therefore in Calvinism – if it comes to pass within a Calvinist’s brain:
1) A PERCEPTION that ALTERNATIVES exist for that Calvinist to choose from
2) That that choice between those ALTERNATIVES is UP TO the Calvinist to make
The it follows:
What that Calvinist is experiencing is a FALSE PERCEPTION of reality – which Calvin’s god decreed to infallibly come to pass within that Calvin’s brain. Because Calvin’s god knows – that his infallible decree does not grant any such thing to any human.
Mike,
Where prophesy is concerned, God does change things to make things happen. This is why the Pharoah was mentioned in Romans 9.
Was it prophesied that Jesus would die on the cross? Yes. By free will Jews? NO. By blind Jews? Yes.
Deu 29:4
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Romans 11:8
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Also, you had said that in heaven, we must have free will to sin. How so? Sin will not be a choice to choose from.
Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
I’m all about free will regarding salvation. But when we talk about Jews, until their blinders come off…which it will…
Romans 9-11…MERCY to those who God blinded.
This is why the book of John was written FOR THE JEWS, regarding God choosing who is going to be DRAWN…The Jews. They transition from The Law of Moses…GOD FOLLOWERS already…to The Law of Christ, to remain GOD FOLLOWERS.
None of this is about Gentiles being chosen, nor is it about ELECTION, or PREDESTINATION. The Law of Christ followers are predestined TO BE___________________. Not that a human was predestined to be saved.
I’m all about free will. But due to prophesy stuff, free will only goes so far. The Pharaoh has nothing to do with salvation issues. It’s about a STORY about Jesus vs. Satan, told by The Pharaoh, playing the role of Satan, and Moses playing the role of Jesus, and the children of Israel playing the role of CHRISTIANS.
Ed Chapman
Mike
God can not violate man’s free will. If He does He is unfair.
.
br.d
What do you mean by “violate”?
MIke
This is why Molinism can be defined as “divine entrapment.”
.
In Calvinism (aka Determinism) –
1) Calvin’s god decided that Adam would infallibly eat the fruit.
2) That decision entailed the DIVINE SELECTION that Adam eating the fruit would be granted EXISTENCE
3) The decree made its EXISTENCE would be infallible.
4) That decision also entailed a DIVINE REJECTION that Adam NOT eating the fruit would NOT be granted existence
5) And the decree established the NON-EXISTENCE of Adam NOT also infallible.
.
So Calvin’s god commands Adam NOT to eat the fruit – while making NOT granting any ALTERNATIVE
Additionally – Calvin’s god had to make a decision about what impulse would come to pass withing Adam’s brain concerning eh fruit
.
Calvin’s god SELECTED the impulse to EAT THE FRUIT would be the only impulse granted existence within Adam’s brain. And the decree made that impulse and NO ALTERNATIVE impulse infallible.
.
Adam was given NO CHOICE in the matter of whether he would eat the fruit
No OPTION to NOT eat the fruit
And NO impulse within his brain to NOT eat the fruit was granted existence.
.
You don’t call that a perfect example of “Divine Entrapment”? :-]
Hmm, where to begin?…..
I think there may be a misconception about Calvinists and free will, which always ultimately comes down to Adam and Eve and the Fall. I do not believe God made A&E eat the fruit and sin….they clearly had a will to do what was right in their own eyes. (How often do we see that in the OT!) Scripture makes it clear that God gave them desire (Gen 3:6, 16), and I think we can imply a will to submit to either God’s desires or their own. They obviously chose their own desires over God’s….and nothing has changed since the Fall. The human’s free will is subject to pride and more often chooses his own desires rather than God’s (even when the choice seems “good” at the time…like how the fruit looked good and delightful).
And so, if salvation is guaranteed by one moment of human will aligning with God’s will, then what about all the moments when the human’s will is prideful/sinful? Then does he lose his salvation? And then does he need to repent and choose to accept all over again…throughout his life?
The Calvinist would say “How merciful and loving is God that He would not leave it up to me for my salvation!! Or else I would be doomed!”
Aren’t the wages of sin death? (Romans 6:23) And if we’ve all sinned (Romans 3:9-23), then we are all dead *spiritually*, and all deserve eternal exile from God. God kicks the sinner out of His presence and prohibits re-entry (Genesis 3:24)… for a time. The whole Bible is about God working out His plan to be in the presence of His people again. People that *He chose* for the sake of *His good and free will.* He chose Abel over Cain, He chose Noah and his family and a few animals over all other flesh, He chose Abraham, He chose Jacob over Esau, He chose Moses, He chose Israel over all other peoples, He chose David over 7 older brothers…. God chooses. I think He’s done a good job choosing everything so far— what is wrong with Him choosing to have mercy on one man but not another? He’s done it so many times!
“That’s not fair! How can God choose one person over another?” >>> Remember Genesis 2:17 and most of Romans? Fairness is *death*. If God were fair, He would have destroyed Adam and Eve and all of creation on the spot at the Fall. So, no…God isn’t fair….He’s merciful instead. Praise His endless mercies on us!!
“You proud Calvinist! What makes you think *you* are chosen by God??” (you might ask). I can only speak for myself and my own heart and experience; but Isaiah 32:17, Romans 8, Hebrews 10 (and others) tell me that I can have assurance through faith in Christ. And Ephesians 2:8 tells me that even my faith is not my own, but a gift from God.
Consider this analogy: Everyone owes a major debt because of sin. To the Calvinist, God put “the money”, so to speak, directly into the accounts of those of His choosing—of His own good pleasure (He surely didn’t have to do it!)—and an auto-payment secured the release of the debt. The humans did not ask for the money, as they didn’t even realize they were in debt until they read/heard the Scriptures. What would *not* make sense to a Calvinist is if God put enough cash on the table for every single person to pay his debt, yet some (who have read/heard Scripture) choose not to take it! Why on earth would they not take the money?!? >>> A Libertarian might say because their hearts were hardened, like Pharaoh’s. But Who hardened their hearts??? Does God still not choose “on whom He will have mercy” in either scenario?
Ok, this is too long….I’ll stop now
Gena,
I’m confused.
You are saying that you are a Calvinist?
Your opening few sentences were clearly non Calvinistic and not deterministic. you’re saying that people had a choice all throughout the Old Testament. that is not the theology of determinism/Calvinism because they believe that God was the origin of all of their choices.
I’m not quite sure you understand fully what Calvinism dictates to the rest of theology
I honestly don’t like labeling myself anything other than a “child of God”, just like all of you. But since I hold firmly to the doctrines of election and absolute sovereignty of God, I wouldn’t know what else to call myself. Maybe just simply “Reformed”?
To be clear, I meant that God is not the author of sin. He did not make Adam/Eve choose sin over obedience….that is not possible for God, as He is holy, good and righteous.
But, yes, I do believe that God is completely sovereign AND that man has a will (which is corrupted by sin).
Gena
Maybe just simply “Reformed
.
br.d
Gena – we are very familiar with Calvinists wanting to distance themselves from the LABEL of Calvinism.
But “Reformed” simply functions as a counter-label for Calvinist.
.
I have given you quotes from Calvin concerning the foundational core of the doctrine
The foundational core of Calvinism – and that which makes it unique and separates it from its alternatives – is classified as EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
In Calvinism – the state of nature – including the state of every individual’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined – and cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
Therefore the state of your nature – the state of every impulse that will come to pass within your brain – at every nano-second in time – is PREDETERMINED before you are created.
.
THUS
1) Any ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed – would COUNTERVAIL and FALSIFY the decree
2) The decree is infallible – and it cannot be FALSIFIED
3) Therefore NO ALTERNATIVES of that which is decreed are granted existence within the domain of creation
4) Thus – NO ALTERNATIVES exist for you to choose between.
5) Any instance in which a PERCEPTION comes to pass within your brain – in which you perceive yourself as having a CHOICE between any ALTERNATIVES would constitute and infallibly decreed *FALSE PERCEPTION* which Calvin’s god decreed your brain to have.
.
6) As a Calvinist – per your doctrine – you go about your day – experiencing a constant stream of *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of choices between ALTERNATIVES which do not exist according to the doctrine of decrees.
.
7) Thus – per your doctrine – you go about your day – experiencing a constant stream of *FALSE PERCEPTIONS* of reality – which your brain is not permitted to discern as FALSE.
.
8) Additionally – you are not granted knowledge of whether or not you are ELECT – because per the doctrine – the ELECT are *INVISIBLE* and known only to Calvin’s god.
.
9) In Calvinism – per the doctrine – Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of believers – specifically to be CHAFF believers – whom he has divinely deceived with a *FALSE SENSE* of salvation.
.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such a SENSE …..as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He causes those whom he illumines ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
So Calvin’s god gives you NO CERTAINTY of your ELECT status.
If you wake up in the lake of fire – then at the point in time – you will know – that Calvin’s divine potter of Romans 9 created you as a CHAFF believer – for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
Gena,
I’m not a calvinist. I’m not a baptist. I’m just non-denomination.
So, my question to you is… did you ever read 1 Cor 15:42-46?
It discusses our body. The one we have now, and the one after resurrection.
Make a table, one column “Body Now”, the other column, “Resurrected Body”.
The one we have now, including Adam, is DIRT, made of the earth.
That Body is a dying (corrupt), dishonorable, weak body.
This is the main reason that I don’t buy into original sin.
You are right. God didn’t force Adam/Eve to eat anything. Their body is weak, and they succumbed to temptation on their own, based on the weak Body that God gave us.
And if you read Romans 7, Romans 5:13, 4:15, and see what they all have in common. How about the word, KNOWLWDGE?
1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20, the law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin.
Now what does Romans 2:14-16 say?
I say all this to conclude that no one is born with a sin NATURE.
No one gets a sin NATURE UNTIL they get Knowledge of what sin even is.
See ACTS 17:30. THEN go back to Romans 7:7-9, and see when Paul died his spiritual death. It certainly was not at his birth in the flesh.
Ed Chapman
Ed
You are right. God didn’t force Adam/Eve to eat anything.
.
br.d
Well – for a Calvinist to make that argument – it is a red-herring
The appeal to Calvin’s god not FORCING Adam – functions for the Calvinist – as a FALSE representation of Calvinism
Because it infers Adam was granted a CHOICE in the matter and thus would CHOOSE otherwise
Then Adam would need to be FORCED
But in Calvinism – Adam is not granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything.
So there is nothing within Adam that needs to be FORCED
.
All Calvin’s god has to do to MAKE Adam eat the fruit – is to not grant Adam any ALTERNATIVE option.
And an infallible decree – in fact – does not grant any ALTERNATIVE option.
Calvin’s god did not give Adam a CHOICE in the matter
.
Thus Calvin’s god did in fact MAKE Adam eat the fruit.
But he didn’t have to use FORCE in order to do it.
br.d,
I hope that Gena reads your comment to me, as it shows the contradiction of Calvin’s god.
Adam:
You can’t force me to eat it!
God:
I didn’t force you to do anything. I predestined it to happen. And, like an idiot, you did exactly what I sovereignty knew you would. I wrote the play, sovereign that I am. And you can’t go against what I sovereinly chose you to do.
I’m wondering about how Gena depicts the 6 days of creation. Six literal 24 hour days? Then explains that Adam did DIE, THAT DAY, by the way, because he lived about a thousand years for THAT DAY…so, 24 hours in a creation day, but a thousand years for Adam’s death in “that day”? How can they have it both ways?
Ed Chapman
br.d
HA! That is funny Ed!!! 😀
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – in order for Adam to say “you can’t force me to eat” – Calvin’s god would have to knowingly and willing decree that impulse come to pass within Adam’s brain.
.
Its really not a surprise at all – that Gena has been taught things which don’t *REALLY* exist within Calvinism.
.
I don’t know any Calvinist who could *REALLY* swallow the camel of Calvinism and not choke it back up! 😀
Gena
Hmm, where to begin?…..
I think there may be a misconception about Calvinists and free will, which always ultimately comes down to Adam and Eve and the Fall….
.
br.d
John Calvin explains
-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 accordingly
1) The event of Adam eating the fruit CANNOT HAPPEN unless that event is knowingly and willingly decreed.
2) The impulse within Adam’s brain to eat the fruit CANNOT HAPPEN unless that impulse is knowingly and willingly decreed
3) Thus – Calvin’s god must make a decision about what event will come to pass – he has TWO options
Option_A: Adam will infallibly eat the fruit
Option_B: Adam will infallibly NOT eat the fruit
4) He cannot decree both options to come to pass – because one options cancels the other
He would be a house divided against himself
5) He cannot leave it OPEN for Adam to determine – because that would falsify Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees
6) He *MUST* choose which event will come to pass.
7) He *MUST select one option and reject the other
8) That option which he selects – will be granted existence – and the decree will makes its existence infallible
9) That option which he rejects – will NOT be granted existence – and the decree will make its NON-existence infallible
Thus – when the time comes for the event that he decrees to come to pass – his decree grants ONLY ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION
.
Adam does not have a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] is NOT granted existence – and thus does not exist an option available to Adam.
.
Also – only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN impulse is granted existence within Adam’s brain.
.
The impulse to [EAT] is infallibly selected – and the decree makes its existence infallible
The impulse to [NOT EAT] is CONTRARY to the decree – and thus not granted existence.
The decree makes the NON-existence of the impulse within Adam’s brain – to be infallibly NON-existent
.
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism – man is NEVER granted CHOICE in the matter of anything – because the decree infallibly excludes the existence of ALL ALTERNATIVES to that which is decreed.
.
Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist for man to choose between.
.
Your problem – as a Calvinist – is that you are simply in denial of your own doctrine.
Calvinism – led you into a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – where you assert the doctrine is TRUE – while treating the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Gena
they clearly had a will to do what was right in their own eyes.
.
Gena – in Calvinism – the movement of every atomic particle is PREDETERMINED by divine decree
Thus – the human will – is NOT determined by any human – it is PREDETERMINED by a divine decree
.
In Calvinism – you do not have a “will” that you can call your own.
Whatever comes to pass – concerning your “will” you are not even aware of – until *AFTER* it comes to pass.
.
As Calvinist James White says:
-quote
The Calvinist does not have foreknowledge of the CONTENT of the decree
He only has knowledge of the CONTENT of the decree *AFTER* it comes to pass.
.
Thus – as a Calvinist – you are granted NO SAY – NO CHOICE and NO CONTROL over your will
Whatever your will is – is the CONTENT of the decree
You are not granted knowledge of what you will was decreed to be – until *AFTER* it comes to pass.
Gena
Consider this analogy: Everyone owes a major debt because of sin.
.
br.d
That is not accurate
In Calvinism – at the foundation of the world – before humans are created – every individual human is *ASSIGNED* certain sins and evils to be held accountable for before that individual is created.
.
Calvin’s god does not look down the corridor of time – and see what humans will do – and then hold them accountable.
Because that would constitute a compromise to divine sovereignty.
.
John Calvin explains
-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)
.
Thus – in Calvinism- a baby can be born today – and that baby can be held accountable
for something that happened 20 thousand years earlier. And Calvin’s god can decree that baby to eternal damnation – for his good pleasure – for sins that baby never committed.
.
Because sins and evils were infallibly *ASSIGNED* to that baby at the foundation of the world.
.
And as far as the Calvinist is concerned – Calvin’s god is impeachable for his decisions.