It should be understood that finding favor in God’s sight is not equal to meriting salvation. If it were there would have been no need for the cross.
One can fear God and tremble at His word so as to find favor in His sight (Is 66:2) while remaining under the debt of sin and in need of Christ’s gracious atoning sacrifice. See the distinction? God is not obligated to save those whom He favors based on the reason He favors them. He chooses to do so based on His love and gracious provision.
Calvinists regularly conflate the concept of finding God’s favor with meriting salvation, which leads to much misunderstanding and misapplication. For instance, Dr. Phil Johnson, a notable Calvinistic pastor wrote,
“Some people prefer to use the expression Total Inability to stress the fact that sinners are so infected with sin that cannot please God according to Romans 8, verse 8. And it’s in that sense that depravity is total. That’s what we mean by this. It’s a total inability to do any good that earns God’s favor.”
We will look at Romans 8 in just a minute, but first notice Johnson’s conflation. He speaks of “earning God’s favor” and “pleasing God” as if that in and of itself merits salvation. Of course that couldn’t be further from the truth. If fearing God and humbly admitting you cannot save yourself merited eternal life and paid the debt for sin then maybe Calvinists would have a valid point but clearly more is needed for the remission of sins than a confession and faith. Blood must be given (Heb 9:22) and Christ does that freely because of His love for us, not because He is obligated by our faith or humble pleas. Scripture teaches,
“These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word.” -Isaiah 66:2b
“Who are those who fear the Lord? He will show them the path they should choose.” -Psalms 25:12
Is God obligated to provide Atonement for these whom He favors? Of course not. Is He forced to show those who fear Him how they should choose? No! He does so out of love. Finding favor in the sight of God IS NOT equal to meriting salvation. Do not allow Calvinists to conflate those two concepts and cause confusion.
Now, back to Romans 8:8, which simply says,
“Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”
In other words, you will not find favor in the eyes of the Lord if you remain in the realm of the flesh. You must stop acting according to fleshly desires and follow the Spirit’s guidance.
This is as true of believers as it is of unbelievers. If one is choosing to act in the flesh, even as a believer, they cannot please God but does that mean we do not have any control over our choice to act according to the flesh or the Spirit once the Spirit makes Himself and His ways known to us? Of course not.
If I warn my rebellious son saying, “You cannot please me by acting selfishly,” does that suggest the child is unable to heed my warning, humble himself and repent of acting selfishly? Of course not. It only suggests that as long as my child continues to rebel and act according to his pride that he will not please me.
This verse says nothing of man’s inability to respond positively to God’s powerful truth and appeal to humble ourselves. Each individual has the choice to remain in their flesh and pride, or respond to the Spirit’s call to humble themselves. If you choose the former YOU CANNOT PLEASE GOD.
By the way, neither side is suggesting that man can please God unto salvation apart from His enabling grace, namely Christ’s atoning work and gospel appeal. So, the question is whether or not the grace is “enabling” (as John 6:65 teaches), or does this grace irresistibly cause which choice the individual will make (as Calvinism presumes)?
Leighton:
Once again you are spot on.
I regularly leave comments on your posts that go unanswered by Calvinists that relate to this topic:
Abel…through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts.
Enoch.. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. .
Noah…was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
Rahab
Ruth
Zechariah and Elizabeth, Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.
Cornelius….a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.
Lydia…a worshiper of God.
Scripture gives us constant evidence that men and women have been enabled by God to seek Him as well as “do good things.” (Granted they are “as filthy rags” for meriting salvation).
But because Calvinists come to the Word with hard-and-fast presuppositions about man, they cannot see this.
There is way too much eisegesis in the few “men are too dead” “haters-of-God” “foolishness” references.
Somehow, their (biased) interpretation of these few verses is supposed to trump all the hundreds of verses like “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.”
I finally gave up defending this man-made idea that “finding favor in God’s sight is associated with salvation.”
Dr. Flowers writes, “Finding favor in the sight of God IS NOT equal to meriting salvation. Do not allow Calvinists to conflate those two concepts and cause confusion.”
I think your confusion results from different definitions of God’s favor.
“God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” We can say that God favors the righteous and the unrighteous equally here.
“…this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.” (1 Peter 2) Thus, we can speak of God’s favor on His elect.
When Dr. Johnson speaks of “total inability to do any good that earns God’s favor,” he is associating “God’s favor” with “salvation.” One way God favors a person is to draw them to Christ – to salvation. Total inability isays that it is impossible for a person to earn salvation, a person has no ability to do anything even to earn God’s favor, much less do anything that merits salvation (or God’s favor leading to salvation).
You have no argument with Calvinism on this point.
Rhutchin:
Please see the list I provided above.
Why does God’s word say that Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God”? This was long before the Gospel had been preached to him.
You constantly miss the point.
Scripture does not depict people as dead like Calvinists do. And this is over and over.
Lydia was a worshiper of God (Theon from Theos). She is not called “dead” but a worshiper of God, before she hears the Gospel.
Of course she cannot work her way to salvation, but the Scripture shows here as a worshiper of God who went out to seek Paul and his message.
“Why does God’s word say that Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God”? This was long before the Gospel had been preached to him.
You constantly miss the point.”
I noted that Cornelius’ actions were evidence of God’s work – as Paul tells us, it is God who initiates a good work in our lives by which we come to Christ – so here in Cornelius’ life as would be the case for Lydia as well as any OT figure described as righteous. Is that the way you see it? What’s the point I am missing??
Then, “the Scripture shows here as a worshiper of God who went out to seek Paul and his message.”
We read, “…on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” (Acts 18)
The absence of a synagogue is implied in Paul’s seeking a “place of prayer” by the riverside. The word, “supposing,” tells us that the meeting with the women was not prearranged else there would have been no “supposing” but a word like “intending.” The women happened to be there, including Lydia who was a seller of purple fabric who was visiting the city to sell her goods. There is nothing implied in the account to suggest that Lydia was seeking Paul but that God had directed the meeting of the two with neither one anticipating the other. That Lydia was a worshiper of God points to God’s previous influence in her life by which she was drawn by God to the Jewish community, presumably in her home town, and who then sought out the Jews in cities she visited.
Rhutchin
That’s fine if you want to constantly add to scripture (eisegete it).
You keep adding to the Scripture : “That Lydia was a worshiper of God points to God’s previous influence in her life”
Only if you say so! The Scripture doesnt.
Zacchaeus sought out Christ (“oh but that would be a previous influence…”) and then followed Christ.
The rich young man sought out Christ (“oh but that would be a previous influence…”)…but then did NOT follow Christ. How was he seeking Christ? But then he didn’t follow? Hummm…. that doesn’t add up!
Here is Hebrews according to Calvin.
11:1 Now faith [which God may or may not give you] is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for [commended for the faith that God gave them that they had nothing to do about].
3 By faith [if God gives it to you] we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith [that God gave him] Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith [that God gave him] he was commended as righteous [which of course doesn’t really mean ‘righteous’], when God spoke well of his offerings [God spoke well of what God had done via the inanimate Abel]. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead [and anyone that God has given faith to can learn from Abel—but no one else can].
5 By faith [that God irresistibly gave him] Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended [not really commended for anything he did] as one who pleased God [not really pleased God since that would imply that God can be pleased, implying change, and He is impassible and immutable]. 6 And without faith [that God may or may not give you] it is impossible to please God [not really please God…], because anyone who comes [if God irresistibly draws you] to him must believe that he exists [if God gives you that belief] and that he rewards [not a reward, since that would imply that God is responding (reacting) and not the Act-or] those who earnestly seek him [but you can’t seek him really].
It just gets so tiring to constantly add nonsense to the Scripture…..like you did with Lydia.
“You keep adding to the Scripture : “That Lydia was a worshiper of God points to God’s previous influence in her life”
Only if you say so! The Scripture doesnt….It just gets so tiring to constantly add nonsense to the Scripture…..like you did with Lydia.”
There is support for God’s involvement in the believer’s life, “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1) and “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works…” (Ephesians 2) Do you really mean to argue that God is not involved in bringing a person to salvation?? I don’t understand why a perfectly logical position should be counted as nonsense by you. At the same time, you are not able to frame a different position; but only to label as nonsense a position that you don’t like.
“The rich young man sought out Christ (“oh but that would be a previous influence…”)…but then did NOT follow Christ. How was he seeking Christ? But then he didn’t follow?”
We don’t know what finally happened to the rich young ruler. Certainly, he left Jesus conflicted – this because of his wealth. As Jesus said, the rich have great difficulty with salvation – certainly a situation where God would have to be active to bring the person to salvation.
This can get so silly sometimes!
Of course God is at work bringing us to salvation. No believer would deny that.
The point is WHY oh why does Scripture take so much time and ink making it look like man has ANYTHING to do with it.
You never ever answer that. You only just say generic, vague passages like “God is at work” and that is suppose to trump the thousands of clear passages showing man’s part. Amazing.
As far as your response about the rich young man…..the very fact that Scripture shows him being drawn to Christ, dialoging with Christ, then walking away (resisting) Christ is very significant. Why does God leave us with that idea?? Man can resist Christ’s calling.
Why is not the Calvinistic idea of irresistible grace ever seen in the word?? the opposite is seen thousands of times.
“The point is WHY oh why does Scripture take so much time and ink making it look like man has ANYTHING to do with it.”
God gives His elect faith that they use to express their love for Christ – that is man’s role. Paul wrote, “we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.” The question here is to define what the “anything” that is man’s part. Man’s part is to glorify God.
Then, “As far as your response about the rich young man…..the very fact that Scripture shows him being drawn to Christ, dialoging with Christ, then walking away (resisting) Christ is very significant. Why does God leave us with that idea?? Man can resist Christ’s calling.”
This was prelude to the main point, After the rich young ruler had turned away, Jesus provides important commentary saying, ““How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Then, we read the key point,”…they who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” But He said, “The things impossible with men are possible with God.”
Then, “Why is not the Calvinistic idea of irresistible grace ever seen in the word?? the opposite is seen thousands of times.”
Of course, people are always resisting God and Christ – this is a key point made by the Calvinists. What does Paul tell us, “…the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness…” (1Corinthians 1)
God’s grace is seen many times in Scriptures:
Ephesians 2 – “…when we were dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive…” and “…by grace you have been saved.”
Acts 16 – “the Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”
Acts 15
7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 “And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;
9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
10 “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
1 Corinthians 5:10 – “…by the grace of God I am what I am,
Philippians 1 – “[God] who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”
Grace is seen often in the scriptures and in each case, it is irresistible.
You continually miss my point.
The Bible spends a lot of time with long passages that LOOK like man is responding and other people are “persuading people to Christ” (Paul’ words).
Only if we have been taught Calvinism can we somehow override all these many passages with the “given faith” idea.
You said man’s role is to express their love for Christ with the faith they were given.
And yet, all of this is irresistible. So are you kidding us or speaking illogically that man is given faith and then irresistibly “required” to believe and express love—and that is “his role”.
All of this is only understood by those who have been taught how to understand it.
I ask you why all the words in Hebrews 11 about people’s faith and how that faith teaches us…..and you come back with “God gives faith.”
So what is the point of Hebrews 11?
Can it teach anything to anyone?
“The Bible spends a lot of time with long passages that LOOK like man is responding and other people are “persuading people to Christ” (Paul’ words). ”
That is because people actually do respond. However, God opened Lydia’s heart “to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” God gives faith to His elect and they respond.
So, who doesn’t respond:
“you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.” (John 10)
“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8)
“Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” {John 8)
“we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.” (Hebrews 4)
“the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8)
“those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they may not believe and be saved.” (Luke 8)
“they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” (John 12)
Then, “Only if we have been taught Calvinism can we somehow override all these many passages with the “given faith” idea.”
Calvinists hold to Ephesians 2, “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;…we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,” (Ephesians 2) and Philippians 1, “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”
Then, “…irresistibly “required” to believe and express love—and that is “his role”.”
It would be irresistibly “desires.” Yes, that is man’s role. What do you say man’s role is?
Then, “I ask you why all the words in Hebrews 11 about people’s faith and how that faith teaches us…..and you come back with “God gives faith.” So what is the point of Hebrews 11?”
Hebrews 11 provides us examples of people to whom God gave faith so that we would know that God is saving people and what people can expect when God gives them faith. “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Rhutchin:
You said:
“Hebrews 11 provides us examples of people to whom God gave faith so that we would know that God is saving people and what people can expect when God gives them faith.”
But why? To what end?
So that we can make better choices?
So that we can learn from them?
Do we make choices?
Do we make any choices that are not pre-dtermined by God?
“But why? To what end? ”
I think we let the Scriptures speak for themselves. At the end of the passage on faith, the author concludes by saying, “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, …For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.”
yes….again….to what end?
Can we endure? can we lay aside encumbrances? can we grow weary? Can we change what will happen? Cna any of those things listed change/ alter the future that God has minutely planned?
If we endure does that enable a different outcome than God has already ordained?
You have no answer for this.
“Can we change what will happen? Cna any of those things listed change/ alter the future that God has minutely planned? ”
Why would anyone want to change the future that God has planned? What do you want in its place?
You said, “///When Dr. Johnson speaks of “total inability to do any good that earns God’s favor,” he is associating “God’s favor” with “salvation.””///
That was the whole point. Calvinists conflate God finding favor with Meriting salvation when clearly that is not the same. If it were then why would Christ need to die?
You never even addressed this point.
Dr. Flowers writes, “That was the whole point. Calvinists conflate God finding favor with Meriting salvation when clearly that is not the same. If it were then why would Christ need to die?
You never even addressed this point.”
The point is that God’s favor can encompasses many things – including salvation. Salvation involves many activities by God (His favor on people) – sending Christ to the cross; drawing a person to Christ, opening a person’s eyes to the message of salvation (as w/Lydia); and conveying faith to a person.
Johnson said, “It’s a total inability to do any good that earns God’s favor.” By “earns God’s favor,” he meant that those circumstances earn or require God to favor the person else the person could not be saved.
I don’t understand your last sentence.
Johnson said, “It’s a total inability to do any good that earns God’s favor.”
The question is why Total Inability earns God’s favor. Total inability says a person can do absolutely nothing to gain salvation – either providing the means (we agree that God does this) or taking advantage of the means. Because the person is incompetent to do anything towards his salvation at any level, he needs God’s favor – or help – or grace – if he is to be saved. Thus, God must favor – or help – or grace – the person by doing everything: drawing the person to Christ, opening their heart, negating total inability, giving them grace, etc. Thus, the term, “earns God’s favor,” could be read as “requires God’s grace.”
So, I think you misunderstand Johnson by saying, “He speaks of “earning God’s favor” and “pleasing God” as if that in and of itself merits salvation.” Johnson (given that he is Calvinist) would read Romans 8:8 to mean that the unsaved do not have faith – thus, cannot be saved. By not having faith, the unsaved “earn” God’s favor meaning that they can only be saved by the grace of God.
Johnson was probably developing his idea of “earning God’s favor” in the source quoted, but we would have to review that source to see what he was driving at. I think he uses “favor” to mean “grace.”
rhutchin writes:
“Johnson said, “It’s a total inability to do any good that earns God’s favor.” By “earns God’s favor,” he meant that those circumstances earn or require God to favor the person else the person could not be saved.”
Red Herring – Ignoratio elenchi (also known as deceptive emphasis)
In Calvin’s world where humans function robotically-controlled by immutable decrees – the Calvinist appeal to a so-called “human earning God’s favor” is a wonderful example of Calvinism’s double-think.
Calvinists love the ideal of their deity controlling a person’s every neurological impulse, and then obsess over whatever that person thinks/chooses/does MAKING-BELIEVE that person’s neurological impulse were not controlled by their deity.
As Calvin instructs his disciple with the double-think, He is to:
(A) Believe that god determines all things (which come to pass) in every part.
while simultaneously
(B) Go about his offices AS-IF nothing is determined in any part – John Calvin
The Calvinist may even go so far as to classify Calvin’s double-think instructions as -quote “merely Calvin’s opinion”.
AS-IF he rejects it.
While he simultaneously and consistently exemplifies it perfectly.
Perhaps we should classify this Calvinist phenomenon as DOUBLE “double-think”
Whatever we call Calvinism’s psychology – it should be obvious – nobody should want it. 😉
Great article!!!
I once did a little research on Paul’s list of “Kata Sarka” (i.e. things that are of the flesh).
It was interesting to see Paul’s list categorized into 3 different categories.
1) lascivious flesh (having to do with bodily lusts such as drunkenness – etc.)
2) Soulish flesh (existing within the realm of the soul – (imaginations – anger/hate/revenge and hyper-religiosity – etc)
3) Intellectual flesh (existing within the realm of the intellect – false doctrines – etc)
The sin of pride (i.e. the pride of life) is not normally exhibited in lascivious flesh or intellectual flesh.
However it can occasionally manifest there.
Where we see the sin of pride manifest the most (especially described in the N.T.) is with hyper-religiousity.
In this regard, the sin of pride is a manifestation of religious flesh.
And religious flesh always has a direct corollary to religious spirits (of the dark kind)
This is why Paul calls false doctrines “διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων” – teachings from demons.
And religious flesh is fairly easy to spot with what Paul calls “ἐφυσιώθησάν” – puffed up.
Blessings! :-]
Take the example of Abraham, who is repeatedly held up as the foremost example of faith. Abraham, demonstrating an amazing faith in God, proceeds to obey his command to sacrifice on an alter his beloved son, who was miraculously given to him by God and promised to bring forth countless descendants. This was the ultimate demonstration of faith – believing in God in the face of impossible or explainable circumstances. This is the exact opposite of Calvinism’s assertion that faith is a unilaterally bestowed gift of God on a passive corpse.
In case you doubt it, read on, to hear God announce “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you . . . because you have obeyed my voice.” It would be absurd to posit, as Rhutchin so feebly tries, that God is not asserting that Abraham has passed a great test, and has won favor and blessing because of his faith. Lest we doubt, this is reinforced by the author of Hebrews. Faith, according to Hebrews 11, “is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval.” Men like Abraham, and many others, as is spelled out even more clearly in the following verses.
Scripture teaches that faith is a personal ‘assurance’, a ‘conviction’ in the seemingly impossible. It was for having this sort of faith that men of old received God’s approval, as the long list of men and women and their demonstrations of faith document. Hebrews 11 would be absurd were faith a ‘gift’ that was unilaterally given by God and passively received by men. The very point of the chapter, and the surrounding ones, is to call out former men of faith and encourage others to emulate them. One cannot emulate passively receiving an unsought gift.
Yet Calvinists must fiercely make the attempt to defend the indefensible, because the genuine, scriptural definition of faith puts a nail in the coffin of Calvinistic determinism. The faith of Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Sarah and countless others is always presented and praised in scripture as their own personal conviction that God is to be trusted in any and all circumstances. Such faith earned men of old divine approval, just as faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus earns men approval today. It is the one and only requirement, set forth by scripture, that is necessary in order to receive the benefit of Jesus’ atonement, that is, pardon for sin and eternal life. Abraham did not ‘earn’ salvation, nor can any other man. He did, however, receive divine approval for trusting God enough to obey him in what was no doubt the most difficult command any man had ever been given. God was pleased with Abraham’s faith, and proceeded to distribute gifts and blessings in response.
Calvinists must, and will, continue to play games with very explicit teaching in scripture in order to uphold their false teaching. They must, like Donald Trump, ever look the moron as they posit absurd explanations and contradictory claims, because they are defending a lie. It isn’t that they ‘don’t get it’, but that they must do their job and tow the party line. They have exchanged the truth for a lie, and now they must ever seek the cover of darkness, dissembling and doublethink in order to assure themselves that their lie is true.
That should read ‘ impossible or unexplainable’ circumstances.
Truthseeker,
You said that very well.
I refer regularly to the specific faith mentioned about people in the Bible only to get very feeble responses like “yes God gave them that faith.” (and of course deterministically forced, irresistibly, the outcome).
What’s the point then? What can “we learn” from all of these examples….and the Scripture even says they are still teaching/ warning/ exhorting us?
The other catchphrase that goes along with “find favor” is that “God acts but never reacts.” Owing strict allegiance to that man-made concept forces Calvinists to ignore most of the Bible (and certainly ignore or twist the whole story of Abraham). They are used to picking and choosing verses and half verses so ignoring huge sections is not a problem for them.
When I refer to all of the thousands of verses where God reacts such as “if you do this, I will do this,” or “because you did this I am doing this,” or “choose for yourselves…” or “David, choose one of the 3 punishment options,” they remind me that “it doesn’t really mean what it looks like it means.”
You make the point well…”It would be absurd to posit, as Rhutchin so feebly tries, that God is not asserting that Abraham has passed a great test,”
But you will soon hear, with a whisk of the wand, some absurd answer that renders “moral of the story” and “the example of Abraham and Abel” irrelevant.
“What’s the point then?” would pretty much sum up life, were Calvinism true.
If God deterministically ordains and controls all that we think, say, believe or do, what is the point of life? It is all a charade, a little play for which God has written the script, cast the characters, written the score, designed the choreography, chosen the costumes, built the sets and all we are doing is acting out the bit we have been forcibly assigned. Nice life. And nice God, for creating countless men and women with absolutely no opportunity to do anything other than act out the sinful roles given them and suffer the eternal punishment preordained for them. Seriously, who would want such a God? Who could love him? Even if you are one of the lucky chosen few, how many of those that you loved were not? Do you really care so little for others, that you will be ever grateful that at least you made the cut, and not give a second thought to the grandmother, cousins, and friends who were not so lucky?
Even the life and death of Jesus is utterly pointless, if God has predetermined who will live and who will die. He might as well have said ‘Eeny, Meeny, Miny Moe’ or ‘Heads, you win’ and spared Jesus the suffering. If all was determined by God, why the farce of having Jesus die and the pretense of offering men salvation if they only ‘believe’. Wink, wink – of course ‘dead’ ‘tmen can can believe, (Actually ‘dead’ men can’t do anything, so Total Depravity is a meaningless concept anyway.) so you have to wait for God to wave his magic wand and make you ‘alive’. Some sort of ‘belief’, if it is performed by God and literally shoved into men’s brains. If, that is, they are one of the lucky few chosen to ‘receive’ this ‘gift’, unlike the rest to whom God says ‘Go to hell’. Literally.
If life is all just God’s little pre-programmed game, and man did not genuinely abuse his God-given free choice to rebel, and God did not genuinely show grace and mercy by offering all men a second chance, then we are all the most pitiable of creatures, and I, for one, would rather not be a part of this ugly little charade. I would not want to spend eternity with the cruel, tyrannical monster that is Calvinism’s God, even under coercion, er, election.
The genuine God of scripture, the God that I personally know and walk with, offers genuine love and mercy to all men, with no partiality. He desires that each and every man would accept his genuine offer of pardon, turn from selfish wickedness and live. Even though some men reject this offer, and will suffer the consequences, this does not detract from the genuine goodness and infinite mercy of God, who truly gave them all they needed to be saved. That is a description that not only squares with scripture, but offers hope to each and every man, woman and child.
All can be saved from sin and destruction, becoming the perfect, unique beings God intended them to be, if they only put their trust in God and his unquestionable goodness. No sinner will ever stand before God and say, ‘My life is exactly what you ordained, demanded and irresistibly brought to pass. If am damned, it is only because you created me to be damned’. Instead, each will be compelled to confess, ‘I heard the truth of your love and mercy, as demonstrated in the sacrifice of your Son for my redemption, but did not believe in it.’ How great will be the condemnation of those who twisted the message of God’s love and mercy, so that many believed that He was a cruel tyrant who would deliberately, hideously withhold all hope from them due to self interest in receiving ‘glory’ at their destruction. Unthinkable, and may God rescue the many naive souls who have been deceptively hoodwinked by this cunning theological lie.
Whooo hooo!
You go truthseeker!
If anyone dares to contend they will call you a heretic and of course say the “beauty of the Gospel” is “foolishness” to you.
Write some more truthseeker…..
truthseeker00 writes, “If God deterministically ordains and controls all that we think, say, believe or do, what is the point of life?”
Who would you rather have in charge of your life, if not God? The point of life is to glorify God which people can do only with God’s help, but that involves God’s ordaining such help and being very controlling.
truthseeker00 writes,
“If God deterministically ordains and **CONTROLS ALL THAT WE THINK SAY AND BELIEVE OR DO**, what is the point of life?”
rhutchin responds:
Who would you rather have **IN CHARGE** OF your life, if not God?
The point of life is to glorify God which people can do only **WITH GOD’S HELP**, but that involves God’s ordaining such help and BEING VERY CONTROLLING.”
Notice the difference in the language between Truthseeker00 and rhutchin
Truthseeker00 expresses Calvinism as -quote “CONTROLS ALL THAT WE THINK SAY AND BELIEVE OR DO”
rhutchin expresses it as “IN CHARGE”, “WITH GOD’S HELP” ,and “BEING VERY CONTROLLING”.
Notice the euphemistic language rhutchin chooses to deploy.
Dr, W.J. Astore teaches a course on the Holocaust, with a focus on the use of euphemisms which were commonly observed within the German language of that period – used to camouflage strategically hidden truths. The most infamous euphemism was “the final solution to the Jewish question,” – euphemistic language for “extermination”.
As examples of Calvinism’s euphemistic language, here we have “IN CHARGE”, “WITH GOD’S HELP” and “BEING VERY CONTROLLING”.
Let the SOT101 readers observe how Calvinism’s euphemistic language is designed to camouflage Calvinism’s strategically hidden truths.
truthseeker)) writes, “Yet Calvinists must fiercely make the attempt to defend the indefensible, because the genuine, scriptural definition of faith puts a nail in the coffin of Calvinistic determinism. The faith of Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Sarah and countless others is always presented and praised in scripture as their own personal conviction…”
Yet, Paul writes, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” We know that God dealt directly with Abraham and could easily convey faith to Abraham to pack it up and move. Certainly, faith is a personal conviction, but that does not tell us how a person comes to have those personal convictions in the first place especially given that others, under pretty much the same conditions, never come to those same personal convictions.
The idea that faith is a personal conviction that people generate on their own (basically a repudiation of Total Depravity) seems like that advocated by Pelagius which gave Augustine so much heartburn. This discussion has been going on for a long time.
Rhutchin
Are you kidding with us?
Your answers are all over the place.
It cannot be a personal conviction if it was forced on you irresistibly.
I wrote the whole “Hebrews according to Calvin” out to you and you answer with “faith comes by hearing” —so vague and irrelevant for the discussion.
Then you went over the top with this….”especially given that others, under pretty much the same conditions, never come to those same personal convictions.”
What? Do you have kids? My kids all have the same father and see the same facts (like any jury does) and yet some have faith in me for some things and others dont.
It is illogical and unbiblical of you to say that we would all choose the same things if we had the same facts.
That is the definition of faith!!!!
“It cannot be a personal conviction if it was forced on you irresistibly.”
How do you conclude that grace is forced on people. When God opened Lydia’s heart was that forcing something on Lydia? When God saved Paul on the road to Damascus, was that forcing something on Paul? When Christ called Lazarus out of the tomb, was that forcing something on Lazarus? I think you just made up the idea that God forces Himself on people because you have no real argument against God’s grace.
Then, “I wrote the whole “Hebrews according to Calvin” out to you and you answer with “faith comes by hearing” —so vague and irrelevant for the discussion.”
I did not see that you had a point. Was it, “It just gets so tiring to constantly add nonsense to the Scripture.” Why is it adding nonsense to cite Romans to say that Faith comes from hearing the word of God. Why is it adding nonsense to cite Ephesians 2 to say that Faith is a gift from God. I don’t understand why the Scriptures are sometimes nonsense to you.
Then, “It is illogical and unbiblical of you to say that we would all choose the same things if we had the same facts.”
If all people have the same facts, what accounts for some people choosing one way and some another? Perhaps, their differing abilities to process the facts that they have. That a distinction Calvinism makes – all are Totally Depraved and all reject God; God gives faith to some and they glorify God.
Then, “That is the definition of faith!!!!”
No, that is the definition of choice. Faith provides the foundation for one’s choice. The faith that God gives a person knows only to glorify God.
Rhutchin,
“When God opened Lydia’s heart was that forcing something on Lydia?”
Could she have said no?
“When God saved Paul on the road to Damascus, was that forcing something on Paul?”
Of course! But not forcing Paul’s future decisions.
“When Christ called Lazarus out of the tomb, was that forcing something on Lazarus?”
Of course! But not forcing his future decisions.
“I think you just made up the idea that God forces Himself on people…”
Of course He forces His way around. He destroyed Herod with worms! But that is not forced obedience.
Your 2nd and 3rd examples mean nothing.
Love cannot be forced. If God has given faith to man and irresistibly required him to used it, that is forced.
Simple question. Could Lydia have said no after the Lord spoke to her?
“Love cannot be forced. If God has given faith to man and irresistibly required him to used it, that is forced.”
So, if the faith that God gives to people does not require people to do anything but opens their hearts to respond to the gospel, then all is well. I guess the Calvinists got it right.
Simple question. Could Lydia have said no after the Lord spoke to her?”
What do we read, “…the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” The option to say, No, was there, but an opened heart could hardly say, No. The opposite of an open heart is a closed heart in which there is no love of God. “…whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3)
Let’s clarify this for any onlookers.
1. You say it is irrelevant that Lydia is called a worshiper of God.
2. You say that God irresistibly drew her and opened her mind (she was a hater-of-God before that).
3. You say that she could not have said no.
You can sugar-coat with “desire” and “choosing” all you want, but anyone can see that if one is irresistibly drawn to something and cannot say no, that is being forced.
I wish Calvinists would just own that.
I thought that was part of “the beauty of Calvinism”?
fromoverhere writes
“You can sugar-coat with “desire” and “choosing” all you want, but anyone can see that if one is irresistibly drawn to something and cannot say no, that is being forced. – I wish Calvinists would just own that. – I thought that was part of “the beauty of Calvinism”?
Excellent point!!
I see here at SOT101, Calvinists putting on the mask, and using a double-speak language they would not need to use in the privacy of their own company.
If one reads the puritan board a little, one will notice there ARE Calvinists there who do OWN THAT and who do assert humans’ functioning according to the model of robots as “THE BEAUTY OF CALVINISM”. There is no need to use dishonest language in their own environment.
I suspect the red herrings and evasions we consistently observe from Calvinist here at SOT101 are just the masks our resident Calvinists currently wear while they are here.
For me this is a blessing in disguise – as it makes the double-think aspects of Calvinism much more prevalent and easy to point out.
And I’ve learned not to go chasing off after a Calvinist who is guaranteed to go into “greased pig” mode.
So I’m ok with it! 😀
“1. You say it is irrelevant that Lydia is called a worshiper of God.”
Not exactly. We can make the assumption that Lydia is like Cornelius. Given that she is a visitor and is worshiping on the sabbath, that seems reasonable. My claim is that Lydia would not be a worshiper of God absent God’s influence on her (basically, drawing her to Christ even though she has probably never heard of Christ).
“2. You say that God irresistibly drew her and opened her mind (she was a hater-of-God before that).”
All people are God-haters (as Paul describes in Romans 8 and Ephesians) before God begins to draw them. One of the first actions God takes is to give new birth a prerequisite to seeing and entering the kingdom of God. That God opened her heart may be a reference to new birth. But, the Scriptures don’t go into detail..
“3. You say that she could not have said no.”
I think she could have said no about as much as I would say yes to eating liver. The option is there. However, given that God had opened her heart for the specific purpose of her responding to Paul’s message, I suspect God opened her heart sufficient to guarantee the result.
“You can sugar-coat with “desire” and “choosing” all you want, but anyone can see that if one is irresistibly drawn to something and cannot say no, that is being forced.”
I don’t see why. If God opens a person’s heart to new desires, there is no reason why those new desires could not dominate the person’s thinking and the choices that they then make.
Then, “I wish Calvinists would just own that.”
RC Sproul is pretty candid about this. I even think Arthur Pink is clear on this. What makes you think Calvinists don’t own this or don’t want to own this?
“I thought that was part of “the beauty of Calvinism”?”
The beauty of Calvinism is that an all wise and loving God is in absolute control of all that happens to us.
That means that the Calvinist God is in absolute control of me saying that “Calvinism is ridiculous,” and “Jesus is Lord!”
I proclaim the name and blood of Jesus as the absolute only power on earth to set men free from their sins.
Jesus is Lord. Calvinism is shallow, unbiblical, and wrong.
Now, according to you…..God has determined that I say this….and me as a believer / follower of Jesus Christ.
Why did He predetermine that so many of His children think that (what you think is true doctrine) is ridiculous?
Sounds like He gave us the choice to me!
“I proclaim the name and blood of Jesus as the absolute only power on earth to set men free from their sins….Now, according to you…..God has determined that I say this….and me as a believer / follower of Jesus Christ.”
Was it not God who opened your eyes to see your sin and opened your heart to receive His word? Could you have escaped yourself without God’s help? God helped you even if you deny it, so God determined this. Do you not now ask God for wisdom, to give you words to speak and good works to do? As Paul asked in Galatians 3, “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
Then, “Why did He predetermine that so many of His children think that (what you think is true doctrine) is ridiculous? Sounds like He gave us the choice to me!”
What is the basic choice God has given you? Is it not “Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.” Paul instructed in Romans 12, “…do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Thus, for the believer, his mind is being radically changed and his thoughts redirected through the study of God’s word – with the Holy Spirit impressing upon the believer the truth of that word and transforming the believer. I don’t understand your problems – you constantly complain but cannot express anything different that makes sense and always seem to be rejecting the truth of the Scriptures.
rhutchin writes “How do you conclude that grace is forced on people. ”
We must remember, in Calvinism god uses a force that does not force! 😉
It is absolutely illogical to say that “irresistible grace” does not mean forced.
Exactly fromoeverhere!
That is – to a logical person.
But the Calvinist is mentored in double-think.
So he is taught to believe his god uses a “Force” that “Forces” without “Forcing” with the power of a “Force”.
When I came to understand that Calvinists are taught [X IS TRUE] AS-IF [X IS NOT TRUE]
It was then, I started to understand how deep the rabbit-hole of Calvinism’s psychology of double-think goes.
“It is absolutely illogical to say that “irresistible grace” does not mean forced.”
OK. So long as you don’t mean that forced means coerced.
And the entire group of onlookers laughed out loud!!
Forced is the same as coerced.
Are you a native English speaker?
“Forced is the same as coerced. Are you a native English speaker?”
One can force a blind man to choose not to step over a cliff by opening his eyes. God can force a lost sinner to turn from his sin by opening his heart to the gospel. That is the “force” that Calvinists say is applied by God in carrying out His plan. If you want to say that God forces people to do as He wills and does this through coercion, then that has nothing to do with Calvinism.
Rhutchin:
(A) maybe the now-seeing man wants to continue walking over the cliff —-but he is ‘forced’ to not do it (bad example)
(B) an open heart to the gospel person is still forced if he cant say no (Paul mentions many people at the close of his letters that we very attentive to the Gospel but still said no, or “walked away”, or “returned to their former life” or “shipwrecked their faith”
(C) You write “If you want to say that God forces people to do as He wills and does this through coercion, then that has nothing to do with Calvinism.” What? That is the ESSENCE of Calvinism and the Reformed definition of “sovereignty” and “omniscience”.
You’re killin’ me with you illogical disconnect.
“(A) maybe the now-seeing man wants to continue walking over the cliff —-but he is ‘forced’ to not do it (bad example)”
Or maybe, he thinks rationally like most people and chooses that which is most reasonable.
Then, “That is the ESSENCE of Calvinism and the Reformed definition of “sovereignty” and “omniscience”.”
Coercion is not the essence of Calvinism.
Rhutchin writes: “Or maybe, he thinks rationally like most people and chooses that which is most reasonable. Then, “That is the ESSENCE of Calvinism and the Reformed definition of “sovereignty” and “omniscience”.”
In making all of man’s actions a result of an innate, programmed determination to do what is most reasonable, Calvinism essentially ditches the scriptural definition of sin. Under the above reasoning, men only sin because they are too ‘dead’ to know what is reasonable. As always, they prefer to avoid Romans 1, which explains that, far from doing what is reasonable and rational, the sinner deliberately chooses what is absurd, foolish and destructive – in the pursuit of temporary pleasure. He deliberately exchanges the truth – doing what is right – for a lie – doing what ‘feels good’. This is a choice. This is the essence of sin. This is what there is no room for under a controlled, determined universe, in which men are all little robots who merely function as programmed. Unable to choose either ‘good choices’ or ‘bad choices’, men are coerced into the scripted acts which are their predetermined lot.
Scripture tells a different story. Man does not need to be ‘regenerated’ to recognize good from evil – he acquired that knowledge in the garden; but Calvinism appears to have forgotten that as well. It is only upon a willingness to acknowledge and repent of wickedness that man is given a new heart, ‘reborn’ into a new life with the Spirit of God dwelling within to lead him ever more to be like Christ. Yes, we need the Spirit of God to enlighten us, encourage us and guide us in the right paths, but the only thing preventing such a new life is man’s rejection of the light to shine upon his darkness and reveal the wickedness of his ways. It isn’t that he cannot see – but he does not want to see. He loves the darkness, because he loves his sin, not because he is too ‘dead’ to know any better.
Funny how the true gospel is so clear to everyone but Calvinists, and how former Calvinists admit that they were so blinded by loyalty to ‘the system’ that they could not read scripture with understanding. Note the common pattern: being saved by the genuine gospel, being deceived into the false system of Calvinism, then escape back into the joyous hope of the true gospel. The number of those escaping from the philosophy of Calvinism is rapidly growing as its futility, hopelessness and quenching of a genuine spirit-led life open men’s eyes to its errors.
truthseeker00 writes, “[Calvinists] prefer to avoid Romans 1, which explains that, far from doing what is reasonable and rational, the sinner deliberately chooses what is absurd, foolish and destructive – in the pursuit of temporary pleasure.”
The Calvinists say that “the sinner deliberately chooses what is absurd, foolish and destructive” is being irrational (we could just call it stupid) regardless the pleasure derived from doing so.
Then, “He deliberately exchanges the truth – doing what is right – for a lie – doing what ‘feels good’. This is a choice. This is the essence of sin. ”
It is also irrational.
Then, “Unable to choose either ‘good choices’ or ‘bad choices’, men are coerced into the scripted acts which are their predetermined lot.”
But not by God.
Then, “the only thing preventing such a new life is man’s rejection of the light to shine upon his darkness and reveal the wickedness of his ways. It isn’t that he cannot see – but he does not want to see. He loves the darkness, because he loves his sin, not because he is too ‘dead’ to know any better.”
The Scriptures call it being dead.
“…you were dead in your trespasses and sins,…even when we were dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive” (Ephesians 2)
“…when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, [God] made you alive…” (Colossians 2)
“…the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.” (1 Peter 4)
Then, “Funny how the true gospel is so clear to everyone but Calvinists, and how former Calvinists admit that they were so blinded by loyalty to ‘the system’ that they could not read scripture with understanding.”
“…by grace you have been saved…” (Ephesians 2)
Paul’s testimony, “…by the grace of God I am what I am…” (1 Corinthians 15)
“…He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1)
“… we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2)
So, Calvinists preach.
Do you notice how rhutchin always writes AS-IF god is not in the picture – totally controlling all of those things and actually authoring of all of those things?
This is per Calvin’s instructions to his disciples:
(A) You are to believe that god determines ALL things which come to pass – in every part.
and
(B) Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined – in any part.
That explains why rhutchin’s posts always strategically present god as totally absent – in the context of human sins/evils.
Isn’t Calvin’s double-think wonderful!! 😉
Br.d writes, ‘This is per Calvin’s instructions to his disciples:
(A) You are to believe that god determines ALL things which come to pass – in every part.
and
(B) Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined – in any part.”
It is bad advice. Hopefully, none follow it.
Br.d writes, ‘This is per Calvin’s instructions to his disciples:
(A) You are to believe that god determines ALL things which come to pass – in every part.
and
(B) Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined – in any part.”
rhutchin responds
It is bad advice. Hopefully, none follow it.
And he doesn’t even discern how/when he perfectly exemplifies it!!
Double-think in full living color!
I must admit – it is pretty entertaining!! 😀
rhutchin again affirms that in Calvinism god forces humans to do what he wills they do
rhutchin writes:
“One can force a blind man to choose not to step over a cliff by opening his eyes.
God can force a lost sinner to turn from his sin by opening his heart to the gospel.
That is the “force” that Calvinists say is applied by God in carrying out His plan”
———————————————————————————————————–
Right – and its interesting how Calvinists when enunciating god forcing people to do things, always appeal to “good events” like saving a blind man from falling or saving a lost sinner.
Well “force” is ‘force’ – whether for good or for evil.
And the vast majority of human neurological impulses which god ‘forces’ humans to have are sin and evil.
Thus we have a good picture Calvinism’s deity.
Additionally rhutchin has provided a great example of how Calvinist conceptions are based upon good-evil moral-dualism.
But from where does Calvinism’s good-evil moral-dualism originate?
We need look no further than Christian Gnosticism which flourished in Augustine’s day – in which Augustine was a disciple for a decade of his life – and the resulting Augustinian syncretisms.
And this camel, Calvin in his adoration for all things Augustine swallowed whole.
Language is an excellent barometer of human thought.
And that is why Calvinist language is based upon good-evil moral-dualism.
br.d writes, “the vast majority of human neurological impulses which god ‘forces’ humans to have are sin and evil.”
Those impulses are the result of a corrupt nature inherited from Adam. God is constantly restraining these impulses to prevent people destroying themselves.
Then, “But from where does Calvinism’s good-evil moral-dualism originate?”
Actually, it originates from the account of Adam’s sin in Genesis.
br.d writes, “the vast majority of human neurological impulses which god ‘forces’ humans to have are sin and evil.”
rhutchin responds:
Those impulses are the result of a corrupt nature inherited from Adam.
Sure – but in such a way that his “secret predestination” decreed upon Adam as Adam’s unavoidable fate
And in such a way that he allowed Adam no “Alternative Possibilities”.
Then:
God is constantly restraining these impulses to prevent people destroying themselves.
Sure – he’s constantly retraining neurological impulse he’s determined come to pass else they wouldn’t come to pass!
What a joke!!
Then, “But from where does Calvinism’s good-evil moral-dualism originate?”
rhutchin responds
Actually, it originates from the account of Adam’s sin in Genesis.
Yes exactly – Calvinism’s good-evil moral dualism theology originates from sin.
We are SOOOOO familiar with Calvinism’s dishonest double-speak!!
Who wouldn’t want to be one!! 😀
br.d writes, “And in such a way that he allowed Adam no “Alternative Possibilities”.”
The sin nature can limit alternate possibilities. “…the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5) “I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.” (Ephesians 4) “To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.” (Titus 1)
br.d writes, “And in such a way that he allowed Adam no “Alternative Possibilities”.”
rhutchin responds
The sin nature can limit alternate possibilities. “…
How silly!!
He doesn’t even know that in Determinism “Alternative Possibilities” only exist as human illusions.
He’s been tricked by his own system’s illusions!!
TO FUNNY!! 😀
Remember in Calvinism’s AS-IF thinking: X is True AS-IF X is not true.
Or putting into Calvinist lingo: X is true. But not in such a way that X is true.
These examples are excellent.
Thanks rhutchin!
“It is absolutely illogical to say that “irresistible grace” does not mean forced.”
rhutchin writes:
“OK. So long as you don’t mean that forced means coerced.”
A concession!
SOT101 readers mark it on your calendar rhutchin is hereby acknowledging – in Calvinism god “forces” people to do his will.
This confirms what I’ve been pointing out – Calvinism is highly dependent upon the subtle parsing of words.
br.d writes, “SOT101 readers mark it on your calendar rhutchin is hereby acknowledging – in Calvinism god “forces” people to do his will.”
Force is a term non-Calvinists apply to Calvinism because they hate the truth. If non-Calvinists insist on using that term, then let’s define it consistent with Calvinist theology. God forced Lazarus to walk out of the tomb by giving him life. God forces the unsaved to follow Christ by giving them life. Neither Lazarus nor God’s elect would say that they were coerced.
Rhutchin:
I dont think you are tracking with Piper and all the guys who get loads of mileage out of the “He turns the hearts of the kings” verse.
They go way too far with the verse (granted), but still they teach that God DOES forcibly turn the hearts of the king. He forces/ coerces/ wills/ and decrees it all.
I am not even sure what you are talking about.
My daughter is in labor a month early and my son gets married this week-end….and I have a day job, so I am done commenting on this “God’s Favor” string.
“they teach that God DOES forcibly turn the hearts of the king. He forces/ coerces/ wills/ and decrees it all. ”
The Scriptures actually teach, “…God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” The hardening/mercying by God does not force one outcome or another. The person is still as free to choose as before.
“br.d writes, “SOT101 readers mark it on your calendar rhutchin is hereby acknowledging – in Calvinism god “forces” people to do his will.”
rhutchin responds:
“Force is a term non-Calvinists apply to Calvinism because they hate the truth. – – God forced Lazarus to walk out of the tomb by giving him life. God forces the unsaved to follow Christ by giving them life”
For SOT101 readers:
Notice how the Calvinist works to hide the dark-side of the theology.
Force is Force – whether Calvin’s deity authors it for good or authors it for evil – which of course he does!
This shows us that Calvinists have a “love-hate” relationship with their own theology.
Their always trying to hide its evil components.
Thanks rhutchin for another good example. 😉
br.d writes, “Notice how the Calvinist works to hide the dark-side of the theology.
Force is Force – whether Calvin’s deity authors it for good or authors it for evil – which of course he does!”
The term, “force,” has different meanings depending on context.
rhutchin writes :The term, “force,” has different meanings depending on context.”
Sure it does! And who would know better how the shuffle word meanings!
For the SOT101 reader:
Shifting semantic weights is the Calvinists primary power – and double-speak is his normalcy.
who wouldn’t love it!! 😀
br.d is forced to admit, “Sure it does!”
rhutchin writes :
br.d is forced to admit, “Sure it does!”
Can’t discern satire?
I shouldn’t laugh – I’ve been there once or twice in my youth. :-]
Fromoverhere writes:
“Rhutchin Are you kidding with us? Your answers are all over the place.”
Excellent insight!!
This is what we call Calvinism’s “greased pig” tactic. 😉
Once again, FROMOVERHERE, you hit the nail on the head. ‘Illogical and unbiblical’ sums up Calvinism in three easy words. Yet they proudly display their lack of logic and scripturally unsupportable claims as ‘the beauty of the gospel’. There is no beauty in their assertions, and their gospel is a far different one than proclaimed by God, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles throughout all of scripture. Twisting a few verses here and there to distort their meaning is nothing new – Peter warned of it in his day. The discerning believer must abandon the ‘traditions of men’ and study scripture carefully to see what it genuinely, consistently teaches. Anything that contradicts is assuredly misinterpreted. ‘God is love’ and ‘God irresistibly ordained some men for eternal destruction, with no hope of redemption, for his own good pleasure’ is utterly contradictory. It it pretty simple to search the scriptures and see which one holds up.
The issue of “meriting God’s favor” is perfectly summed up in the story of Job. Job, at the outset (Job 1) had God’s favor EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT SAVED at that time. He wasn’t saved until Job 42:5-6.
In between Job 1 and 42, Job found out that he had sinned against God (7:20-21) and would go down to the “pit” upon his death. Just like you and I, he sought God through his 4 friends until, in Job 33:23-32, his friend Elihu preached to him the gospel of salvation. And you know what? That is often not enough. Many of us have to believe that the gospel is God (Holy Spirit) talking to us personally before we will believe.
So what “merits” God’s salvation? Job prayed, “I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.” Today we know that as “take up your cross” (Lk 9:23-24) or “repent and receive the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38) or “be ye reconciled to God” (2Cor 5:20) or “Let the wicked turn from his ways and the unrighteous from his thoughts” (Isa 55:7). “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and SAVES such as are of a contrite spirit.” (Psa 34:18)
It would seem to me that meriting god’s favor, or meriting salvation is a contradiction in terms from a biblical perspective.
In Calvinism however, one merits whatever god, (at the foundation of the world) determines one merit.
God designs the few as vessels fitted for good.
God designs the many as vessels fitted for evil.
As Calvin would say – god designs each man’s LOT in life.
On Calvin’s view, each person simply merits what god has designed him to merit.
And since each man’s LOT is destined before he is born, merit is not the consequence of one’s condition, but of one’s destiny.
Blessings! :-]
Yes BRD and that “lot” and “fate” correlate perfectly with the Qadar of Islam. Which goes with the Insh’allah in so many of their statements.
Research Islamic Qadar and you will find the same determinist philosophy described by a few on these pages.
Research Islamic Qadar and you will find the same determinist philosophy described by a few on these pages.
Good point!
Yes I’m familiar that theological determinism is also in Islam – and argumentation tactics parallel as well.
I remember how James White attacked Ergun Caner for point out parallels between Calvinism and Islam.
What Calvinism deceptively attempts to hide is the heart of the gospel – good news – of Jesus Christ. Judaism, like Calvinism, asserted that God would someday provide atonement for sin. They knew they were sinners in need of atonement, as had been revealed to them through the ceremonial system. That was the whole point of all the ceremonial cleansing, sacrifices, etc. Jesus upset their applecart – and their mercenary tables – by asserting that not only was he their long-awaited atonement (Messiah), but that this atonement was, and always had been, intended for all men. ALL MEN.
Lest they pretend to misunderstand, Paul deftly proved that even Judaists did not believe that all Israelites would be saved, but only those who met the conditions established by God. Jesus declared that those early conditions had never been fully met by anyone, never could be and never would be. He came to fulfill them himself, giving him the right to declare forgiveness of sin for all men.
Thus, since the death of Jesus, no man ever need die on account of sin. Sin has been atoned for, end of subject, unless one is foolish enough to reject the pardon offered to him. The only reason men die now is because of unbelief. Those who reject the God-provided atonement for sin do so for many reasons, including pride, arrogance and love of pleasure.
Paul cut through all the doubletalk of Judaists and set forth the heart of their problem, which was pride. It was not that they did not understand sin and the need for atonement, it was that they refused to abandon their belief that God’s love was for them alone. They believed that only national Israel was ‘the elect’, chosen unto God’s favor, love and salvation; all of the Gentile, heathen nations were reprobate, never intended for anything but to shovel dung for the elect and burn in hell. Just as Calvinism teaches.
Like Calvinists, Judaists attempted to hide their pride and arrogance under their self-righteous robes, appealing to the ‘glory’ of God’s promises to Israel, and how it would be all for naught if salvation was offered to all men. They did not desire to be merely the much-loved, firstborn of God, they wanted to be his sole, chosen people. This requires withholding the good news of salvation from all other men, which is why Israel was rejected and condemned.
It is time people stopped debating over the meaning of words, which is a mere distraction from the heart of the matter. God so loved the world – every single man, woman and child ever created – that he sent his Son to provide atonement, forgiveness and a second chance for everlasting, sinless eternity with God. Let no man, Judaist, Atheist or Calvinist, stand in the way of declaring this truly good news.
truthseeker)) writes, “God so loved the world – every single man, woman and child ever created – that he sent his Son to provide atonement, forgiveness and a second chance for everlasting, sinless eternity with God.”
Or, it could be, “God so loved the world – not just the Jew but the gentile, also – that he sent his Son to provide atonement, forgiveness and a second chance for everlasting, sinless eternity with God.” Thus, Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1) and ” is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,…” (Romans 3) and “the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” (Ephesians 3)
Rhutchin, I have no argument with what scripture says . . . Thus, Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
The problem is when Calvinists distort the clear meaning of simple words. Funny how you can so easily overlook ‘to everyone who believes’ . . . oh, wait, you distort the natural meaning of such words, asserting that all the commands to ‘believe’ and rewards for doing so are disingenuous; we all know, thanks to John Calvin, et. al., that God cursed men’s ability to believe right out of existence before they were ever born.
Silly Calvinist God, does he expect us to not notice that he repeatedly promises forgiveness and life to ‘’whosoever will’ when he incapacitated all of the ‘whoso’s’ from ever being able to will anything? Because they disobeyed? No, no, it is all due to the sin of their forefather, before they were ever born or able to choose right from wrong.
Is that why Calvin’s God plays games with words? Is he afraid we won’t like him if we see him as he really is, unjustly condemning all men for the sins of their father, cruelly mocking them by making demands he knows they cannot meet, then mercilessly condemning them for not doing that which he could have, but chose not to, enable them to do? Yeah, I’d hide behind misleading suggestions and disingenuous promises if I were such a monster too.
For the sake of all who might be yet deceived by these distortions, I assure you they are utterly untrue.
God did not curse all men with an inability to hear and obey him due to what some other guy did before they even existed. Nor does God mockingly command men to do that which he made them unable to do. Instead, he genuinely pleads with all men to do what any man can do of his own free will – believe in him and his promises, turn from their wickedness and live. That’s right, he is pleading with the lost, urging them to accept his offer, just like a good ol’ revival preacher. All day long he holds out his arms to sinners, and says ‘Why will you die, O [man]? For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord God; so turn, and live.”
How dare I call Calvin’s Total Depravity unjust? Let’s see what God says through his prophet Ezekiel:
“Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. **[WAIT, CALVINISM SAYS MAN CANNOT DO WHAT IS LAWFUL AND RIGHT, NOR OBSERVE GOD’S STATUTES!]** The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. **[WAIT, CALVINISM’S TOTAL DEPRAVITY ASSERTS THAT ALL ARE UNDER A CURSE, SUFFERING FOR THE INIQUITY OF THEIR FEDERAL FATHER, JUST AS GOD HERE FORBIDS!]**
“But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.
“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.[d] Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord God; so turn, and live.” (Ezekiel 18:19-32)
This all becomes gibberish nonsense if men are unable to turn from wickedness to righteousness, and from righteousness to wickedness. These, and countless other passages necessitate the utterly free choice of men to sin or not sin, to turn from sin and even to turn back to sin. (Note, what has been for so long distorted in Christianity is the fact that man can not avoid being born into a world in which sin exists, and has tainted all that exists, due to the choice of his forefather; but he is not held guilty of any sin until and unless he actually commits a knowing, willful act of disobedience.) God is not playing some sort of lawyer’s game, seeking to nail us with some nonconsensual contract and undisclosed liability. He is calling us to a willing relationship, and a genuine loving relationship demands freedom to come, to stay, or to leave. The minute one is coerced into a relationship, or into remaining in a relationship from which they wish to escape, it loses all value. This is known as slavery, not love.
Twist, twist, twist, goes the Calvinist, all for what? To claim that God does not love all men. Why are they so damned determined to prove such a horrendous claim? You would think any decent human being would welcome the fact that there are very reasonable alternatives to their putrid theology. But then, you might have to acknowledge that God tells us in Ezekiel that our sins are not merely going to be ‘covered’ by Christ’s righteousness, but that we have to forsake our sins, turn from our wickedness. Tut, tut, there goes the beloved license to sin and eternal security in one swoop. And, there is no excuse for being a judgmental, self-righteous legalist if you don’t make God out to be thus. You might actually have to exhibit humility, grace and forbearance to those who don’t look and think just like you. You would have no license for your mockery, scorn and arrogant condemnation of all the ‘others’ who don’t understand the complexity of scriptures that only seem to say that God is love, desires none to perish and sent his Son that anyone who so desires can put their trust in him and live. Ah, you, oh Calvinist, like the original Pharisees, know that God loves only you, offers salvation for only you, has promised an eternity of blessings and rewards for only you – and the rest of the world be damned. Literally. (Ever notice how much profanity comes from Calvinsim? ‘Go to hell’, God damn you’ and such phrases that appall the self-righteous Calvinist come straight from the mouth of their own god.)
I pity, Calvinists. Even more, I pity those who are drawn into their life-destroying trap by lingual tricks, misleading language and distortion of scripture. Poor, poor, well-meaning believers who have the God of love ripped from their lives and are left wounded and bleeding. Until their hearts scab over, and they have no feeling left, for God, for the lost or for the purposeful life they once knew. Now all they have are harsh, despicable doctrines that would make the most godless heathen blush – which is why they have to prey upon those who are already believers. I cannot tell you how many once-lovely persons I have seen become cold, heartless, arrogant Pharisees thanks to Calvinism. I continue to pray for their restoration to true faith in the true God of scripture.
TS00
Two quick things about that good post.
You described me to a T when you said this sentence.
—-This all becomes gibberish nonsense if men are unable to turn from wickedness to righteousness, and from righteousness to wickedness.
While being a Calvinist I decided to put the books down and read the Bible through and through. SO MUCH of it became nonsense with my Calvinist glasses on. A waste of time, or worse, an absolute misleading ruse. God playing tricks ….holding out treasures to all, but only allowing a very few to come. The Wedding feast parable…where they go and invite everyone (!) because the first invitees refused to come (so many of the 5 points blown away in one parable!!).
The second quick thing is if (IF) you get a response from Rhutchin he will take one line out of the long post and shove some out-of-context “proof-text” at you as though it were a magic silver bullet.
But long was your post because …..copious mountains of Scripture are behind you…..
All become so much gibberish in the shadow of determinist philosophy.
truthseeker00 writes, “Funny how you can so easily overlook ‘to everyone who believes’ . . . oh, wait, you distort the natural meaning of such words,”
The phrase is a participle and denotes that the believing ones have eternal life. The verse does not describe how people come to believe; for that other Scriptures must be consulted.
Then, “Silly Calvinist God, does he expect us to not notice that he repeatedly promises forgiveness and life to ‘’whosoever will’ when he incapacitated all of the ‘whoso’s’ from ever being able to will anything? ”
Even you know that the phrase is, “πας ὁ πιστευων,” and πας has the sense of “all.” Thus, “all the ones believing,” is more straightforward but the translators decided on “whosoever believes.” The meaning is the same. It is a statement of fact and nothing more. You take the verse to say more than it does.
Then, “These, and countless other passages necessitate the utterly free choice of men to sin or not sin, to turn from sin and even to turn back to sin.”
That’s what Pelagius said and others who have followed him. So, you are a synergist.
Then, ‘Twist, twist, twist, goes the Calvinist, all for what? To claim that God does not love all men. Why are they so damned determined to prove such a horrendous claim?”
Now, you argue as the universalist. Calvinists have no problem with God saving everyone; they don’t see the Scriptures supporting that conclusion.
truthseeker states
“It is time people stopped debating over the meaning of words, which is a mere distraction from the heart of the matter.”
Oh if only that could be something we could anticipate.
But alas – shifting the semantic weight of words – equivocating – and misleading people through beguiling language is here to stay.
At least until Jesus cleanses the world of it.
I am convinced when Christians really recognize how prevalent beguiling double-talk is in Calvinism – they will not get ensnared in its net.
Blessings Truthseeker! :-]
br.d writes, “I am convinced when Christians really recognize how prevalent beguiling double-talk is in Calvinism – they will not get ensnared in its net.”
Under Calvinism, God is omniscient and everything was determined when God created the universe. One either gives up omniscience or concedes the obvious – all the complaints of double-talk notwithstanding.
Rhutchin writes: “Under Calvinism, God is omniscient and everything was determined when God created the universe. One either gives up omniscience or concedes the obvious . . .”
I know you like to sound that note, but your own comment suggests the real issue. Most christians assert that God is omniscient; in fact I have never met one that denied it. Calvinists, however assert that God is omniscient AND that everything was determined when God created the universe. The second statement is the part they fabricated from their own imagination, and is not in any way necessitated by God being omniscient.
Everything was KNOWN by God when he created the universe, but that does not demand that all was DETERMINED by God. Certainly one means of knowing everything is to have deterministically controlled all, but this is not the only possibility, and it is completely negated by hundreds of scriptures that posit men’s freedom to choose, to obey or disobey, to trust God or not trust God, to sin or turn from sin, to love God with all of their hearts or to love self. The vast majority of the bible is the story of man rebelling against God’s will, of God calling him to repentance and the hope of a future when men will finally see sin for what it is and justly reject it.
No matter how many times you conflate the two, to know everything is not, necessarily, to determine everything; this is an unfounded assumption, which is soundly refuted by every narrative in scripture. These stories portray the ongoing saga of man in rebellion against the will of his Creator. I pray, with Jesus, for the day when God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven. Obviously, his petition leaves little question that God’s will is not being done now, nor do many suggest that is because he is powerless to make it happen; rather, he has chosen to give men a free will, and has determined on his own to respect that freedom. Hence, no man will ever be compelled to trust in God against his will. There has never been, and never will be coercion on God’s part to bring men to himself and there most definitely is no coercion (curse/Total Depravity) to keep men from him.
I spell these things out, not for your sake, for you are likely a paid troll, but for the sake of others, who are genuinely confused and seek to examine these issues from another perspective.
truthseeker00 writes, “Everything was KNOWN by God when he created the universe, but that does not demand that all was DETERMINED by God….No matter how many times you conflate the two, to know everything is not, necessarily, to determine everything; this is an unfounded assumption, which is soundly refuted by every narrative in scripture….”
God is omniscient and at the creation, God knew everything that would happen from that point on. Thus, everything was necessarily determined at creation as God only knows truth and has no false knowledge of future events.
Then, “These stories portray the ongoing saga of man in rebellion against the will of his Creator.”
They do not negate God’s omniscient knowledge of all future events including all of man’s rebellion, nor do they negate deterministic influences bringing all future events to pass including all of man’s rebellion. Your assumption of a free will cannot negate God’s knowledge of those events you allege to be freely chosen and as an assumption, free will does not negate determinism. Your assumption of free will must be shown to be true and then incorporated into a logical argument that concludes that free will invalidates determinism. I don’t think anyone has yet to do that – either to prove “free wil”l to be true or to prove that “free will” invalidates determinism.
rhutchin writes:
God is omniscient and at the creation, God knew everything that would happen from that point on. Thus, everything was **NECESSARILY** determined at creation as God only knows truth and has no false knowledge of future events.
This is the classic argument for Theological Fatalism:
William Lane Craig explains:
Theological Fatalism is a fallacious argument. Here’s basically how the argument goes:
1. Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen (where X can be any sort of event that you want to imagine in the future).
2. God foreknows X (God foreknows everything that is going to happen, so he foreknows X will happen).
3. Therefore, necessarily, X will happen.
But if X happens necessarily, then that means that everything is fated to occur and therefore there is no freedom.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-14
br.d writes, “3. Therefore, necessarily, X will happen.”
As Craig explains, “This argument has got to be fallacious because fatalism posits a constraint upon human freedom which is completely unintelligible. God’s knowledge is not thought to be the cause of what will happen in the future. The claim is not that God’s knowing about something causes that something to happen.”
No problem there. The need now is to explain how events come about given that God’s knowledge only makes them certain but not necessary.
rhutchin
September 17, 2017 at 2:07 pm
Thus, everything was **NECESSARILY** determined at creation as God only knows truth and has no false knowledge of future events.
Rhutchin later writes:
“The need now is to explain how events come about given that God’s knowledge only makes them certain but not **NECESSARY** .
We get it rhutchin. 😀
br.d writes, “I am convinced when Christians really recognize how prevalent beguiling double-talk is in Calvinism – they will not get ensnared in its net.”
rhutchin writes:
Under Calvinism, God is omniscient – One either gives up omniscience or concedes the obvious
Another Calvinist red herring
God’s omniscience is not causally relevant. It does not cause anything to come to pass.
then
and everything was DETERMINED when God created the universe.
Cutting through the beguiling double-talk what we have is:
Every human thought/choice/nature/destiny – is predestined by god to occur as each human’s unavoidable fate.
Then
– all the complaints of double-talk notwithstanding.
Here the use of the word “complaints” is good example of Calvinist shifting semantic weights – (i.e. beguiling double-talk)
br.d writes, “Another Calvinist red herring
God’s omniscience is not causally relevant. It does not cause anything to come to pass.
…Every human thought/choice/nature/destiny – is predestined by god to occur as each human’s unavoidable fate.”
And the Calvinist red herring, omniscience, verifies this.
br.d
In Calvinism, every human thought/choice/nature/destiny – is predestined by god to occur as each human’s unavoidable fate.”
rhutchin responds:
“And the Calvinist red herring, omniscience, verifies this.”
Exactly – as stated in the “god who sets the house on fire” example.
He knows the house is on fire with his omniscience – therefore his knowledge “verifies this”.
A Mother confronts her child who stole money from her purse:
Did you take money from my purse?
Child uses a classic Calvinist response:
I KNEW that money was being taken from your purse.
My knowledge that money was being taken from your purse “verified this”.
-quote:
The red herring fallacy falls into a broad class of RELEVANCE fallacies.
The red herring is seemingly plausible, even possibly true.
Yet it is an ULTIMATELY IRRELEVANT ploy, used as a diversionary tactic – designed to distract and therefore guide people towards reaching a falsehood.
red herrings are part of Calvinism’s beguiling language.
Let the discerning Christian learn how these Calvinist language tricks work. 🙂
br.d writes, “Exactly…He knows the house is on fire with his omniscience – therefore his knowledge “verifies this”.
At least, you finally got it correct.
Then, “Child uses a classic Calvinist response:
I KNEW that money was being taken from your purse.
My knowledge that money was being taken from your purse “verified this”.”
You left out his answer to his mother’s Q: “No, I did not take the money out of your purse. But, I know who did.”
br.d writes, “Exactly…He knows the house is on fire with his omniscience – therefore his knowledge “verifies this”.
rhutchin
At least, you finally got it correct.
Yes – we are seeing all of the Calvinist beguiling language tricks! Yeah! :-]
Then, “Child uses a classic Calvinist response:
I KNEW that money was being taken from your purse.
My knowledge that money was being taken from your purse “verified this”.”
rhutchin writes:
You left out his answer to his mother’s Q: “No, I did not take the money out of your purse. But, I know who did.”
Right! the child knows who did because the child is the one who did.
That is the basic premise in the story designed to highly the Calvinist language trick!
Thanks for another good example. 😀
You actually make it appear so easy along with your presentation but I in finding this matter to be actually something that I believe I might never understand. It kind of feels too complex and extremely vast for me. I am taking a look forward in your subsequent post, I will try to get the cling of it!
Alex, sometimes it is former, less than accurate, teaching that makes it difficult for us to grasp the truths of scripture. And, indeed, none of us ever grasp them fully. I found it helpful to essentially ignore everything I was ever ‘taught’ about what salvation, atonement, justification, etc. mean, and just read the bible and see what it actually says.
I believe what Dr. Flowers is trying to point out is that atonement and salvation are two distinct things. Atonement is one aspect of salvation, which is provided only and wholly through the death and resurrection of Jesus. That atonement was and is ‘finished’ as Jesus himself attested to. And yet, salvation was not fully accomplished. The atonement was provided so that the mighty plan of redemption (salvation) could then move towards completion. Because of the atonement, the law no longer holds anything over those who put their trust in Jesus’ atonement; it can no longer threaten or terrify, for man can point to Jesus and say ‘the debt has been paid’.
The word salvation has taken on so much baggage that we can no longer think about what it actually means. What is it that we need to be ‘saved’ from? We are being promised to be ‘saved’ from the terrible curse and power of sin, which has hung over us bringing great fear and dread. We are being promised to be ‘saved’ from the coming wrath of God, which will be leveled against all who refuse to believe in the offer of forgiveness provided through Jesus. We are being promised to be ‘saved’ from the current evil world in which we all exist, in which sickness, oppression, murder and countless evils exist, and given hope for a wonderful future.
Atonement was the necessary first act, ordained and provided by God. It accomplished the end of the power of sin to enslave and destroy. But this marvelous and essential act of atonement is not ‘salvation’ – it is what makes our future salvation possible. All who believe in, or trust God fully, find favor with him.Yet the atonement for sin was necessary for ‘salvation’ to take place. Deal with sin, pay its debts, remove its power to enslave men through fear, and the door is opened for God to once again dwell with man (indwell their hearts with his Spirit). Salvation, with all of its benefits, is something that we await with the second coming of Jesus, when all that has been promised will be fully accomplished.
I don’t know if this will help or not but I’m reminded of N.T. Write in his discussion on the N.T. concept of “justification”.
In the court room a person may be said to be “justified” – and in that case it may mean “found innocent”. But that isn’t the concept used by the N.T. authors. What they mean is “forgiven”.
So divine favor in the N.T. works along the line of being forgiven rather than being found innocent or being found “in the right”.
Calvin’s god by decree designs and creates:
1) ALL mankind into sin – which he renders-certain
2) The “few” rendered-certain forgiven from that rendered-certain sin
3) The “many” rendered-certain NOT be forgiven from that rendered-certain sin
Br.D. writes:
“Calvin’s god by decree designs and creates:
1) ALL mankind into sin – which he renders-certain
2) The “few” rendered-certain forgiven from that rendered-certain sin
3) The “many” rendered-certain NOT be forgiven from that rendered-certain sin”
Which may be from N.T. Wright? Note what is missing. As the cross is rendered useless in the Determinist’s scheme, in which God has already determined and ordained who will and will not be redeemed, it is easily overlooked. (This was the ‘aha’ moment for me, when I realized the nature of the error of Calvinism as rendering the cross ultimately unnecessary, despite all claims to the contrary.)
Might I propose the biblical alternative?
God, by creating man with God-like reason and choice oversees a creation in which:
1) All men sin – choosing destructive, flesh-pleasing actions due to separation from God
2) Knowing man’s inability to escape sin, God provides atonement, which sets aside sin and grants man the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God to show him the true meaning of good and evil
3) The “pure in heart” desire good but are unable to achieve it on their own, submit to God, accept his forgiveness and are “born again” as God’s children, indwelt with His Holy Spirit
4) The “wicked” reject God’s forgiveness, clinging to the lie that they are good enough, or even that God is a myth, and are left accountable for the sin that could have been forgiven and overcome by the freely offered grace of God
Might I even be bold enough to suggest that the work of Satan in this post-atonement world is to deceive men concerning the nature of sin and atonement, preventing them from receiving forgiveness and the power of the indwelling Spirit to resist evil and become more like Christ? That is what I perceive as being at stake in the discussion of Calvinism.
Great post TruthSeeker
I was perhaps not clear in my reference to N.T. Write – he is definitely not a Calvinist – he is a scholar of the N.T. Greek.
To give one a snap-shot of how he sees Calvinism forcing the N.T. into its philosophical grid – one can check out an interview/debate with James White on Youtube. He doesn’t let White get away with much. He reads fluidly directly from the Greek during the interview. :-]
br.d writes, “…my reference to N.T. Write…”
Just being picky – it’s N.T Wright
Good catch :-]
ts00 writes, “As the cross is rendered useless in the Determinist’s scheme, in which God has already determined and ordained who will and will not be redeemed, it is easily overlooked. ”
This is wrong. God ordains both the end and the means to that end. Take away the cross and no one can be redeemed – even under theological determinism.
Then, “Might I propose the biblical alternative?”
I don’t see anything here that the Calvinists would argue against – other than to say that more in involved. Good start to describing what the Scriptures tell us.
Then, “That is what I perceive as being at stake in the discussion of Calvinism.”
To some extent, Yes. However, the major issue deals with the extent to which God must be involved in the salvation of His elect.
ts00 writes, “As the cross is rendered useless in the Determinist’s scheme, in which God has already determined and ordained who will and will not be redeemed, it is easily overlooked. ”
rhutchin responds
This is wrong. God ordains both the end and the means to that end. Take away the cross and no one can be redeemed – even under theological determinism.
br.d
Perhaps this hinges on the term “useless”.
Obviously the programmer who programs every though/choice/action of the robot – doesn’t consider any one specific algorithm or if-then-choice within the robots program “useless” – as these are all “means” to the programmers end.
As it is with Calvin’s god – the robot programmer determines both the ends and the means.
A word that to replace “useless” would be “unnecessary”.
In Calvinism any specific “means” Calvin’s god uses is not “necessary”.
For any specific “means” to be “necessary” would mean he could not produce his end without that specific “means”. And that would equate to a limitation on his part.
Therefore truthseeker’s statement would be correct – if rephrased:
The cross (as a means to an end) is not “necessary” in the determinist’s scheme.
Calvin’s god can bring about his end using any “means” he pleases.
He could just as easily wave a magic wand and say “abracadabra” if that is his pleasure. :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god can bring about his end using any “means” he pleases.
He could just as easily wave a magic wand and say “abracadabra” if that is his pleasure. :-]”
God reveals in the Scriptures the means that He chose to save His elect, and those means included the cross.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god can bring about his end using any “means” he pleases.
He could just as easily wave a magic wand and say “abracadabra” if that is his pleasure. :-]”
rhutchin
God reveals in the Scriptures the means that He chose to save His elect, and those means included the cross.
br.d
Tangential and irrelevant to point – unless your trying to make the argument that god is incapable of using whatever “means” he pleases. That is consistent with determinism – and consistent with John Calvin.
-quote:
God, for which no cause or reason can be rendered but his own gratuitous good pleasure.
John Calvin – De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione col-270
Just Rhutchin’s typical nonsense talk, making words mean whatever he wants, even if it requires changing definition midstream at times. Points 1 and 2 refer to the exact same problem – sin. And forgiveness means no punishment. When a president issues a pardon, he is not just saying ‘I’m not mad anymore’, he’s saying, no more punishment will be demanded. Jesus did not die because God was ‘mad’; he died so that the punishment for sin was performed, freeing men from its costly debt. Don’t Calvinists ever grow tired of playing word games, speaking doublespeak and defending illogical contradictions? Rhutchin must get paid well, playing the same games over and over with no appearance of growing weary.
I think its a form of saving face.
Calvinism advertises itself as having all the answers and boasts being superior to competing products in the Christian market-place.
Calvinist advertisements are designed to maximize consumer buy-in.
The problem is – the DARK-SIDE of the product must be obfuscated.
There will always be products on the market that can’t achieve consumer buy-in without relying upon false advertising schemes. Calvinism is one of them.
Double-speak mantras – which Calvinists are taught to memorize and recite.
br.d writes, “Calvinism advertises itself as having all the answers and boasts being superior to competing products in the Christian market-place.”
Calvinism claims that the Scriptures have all the answers, and they explain how they understand the Scriptures. Competing explanations stand on their merits.
br.d writes, “Calvinism advertises itself as having all the answers and boasts being superior to competing products in the Christian market-place.”
rhutchin
Calvinism claims that the Scriptures have all the answers, and they explain how they understand the Scriptures. Competing explanations stand on their merits.
br.d
-quote “Calvinism claims that the Scriptures have all the answers”
If that were true – there would be no controversy.
And Calvinists wouldn’t have to use double-talk advertising techniques to obfuscate the DARK-SIDE of the product. 😉
Calvinist exegetical rule #1: All scripture must affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Any scripture that does not must be avoided or neutralized by double-think rationalizations.
Calvinists always win the prize – of being the most subtle beasts in the field (of Protestantism). 😛
Br.D. writes:
“Calvinist exegetical rule #1: All scripture must affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Any scripture that does not must be avoided or neutralized by double-think rationalizations.”
Impossible. Or perhaps I have lost my patience with trying to rationalize what I want to believe when verse after verse after verse defies it. As a challenge, just try reading through the Psalms. I started this week in an attempt to pull out every verse that contraindicated Calvinism. I had to give up after only six psalms – I was pretty much copying the entire book of Psalms. (I tried this starting with Genesis a few years back, with the same result – I just thought the Psalms might be easier. Not so.)
Almost no part of Psalms makes sense under Calvinistic Determinism. If David believed that God meticulously determined and brought to pass all of the evils and attacks by his enemies, he sure wasted a lot of time complaining and begging God to deliver him. How silly is it to beg God to deliver you from what he deliberately sent your way? And if David believed in Calvinistic Determinism, why does he speak again and again of God choosing the righteous, and commend the qualities that win God’s favor, such as justice, truth and steadfast love? One would really be hard put to affirm that David actually thought all of the bloodthirsty, wicked evildoers he so despised and begged God to destroy had actually been meticulously ordained and directed by God to do their wicked acts.
It really is impossible to take Calvinism seriously if you simply read straight through scripture. It only works if you focus on a few cherry-picked verses and partial verses, and leave out the vast majority of those which clearly challenge meticulous, irresistible, Divine Determinism.
Well stated truthseeker – I totally agree.
I think there is a factor of mental cognitive biases at work.
A person who is convinced that scripture affirms truth, is not going to go data mining in scripture looking for affirmations of things he is convinced are falsehoods.
I remember back in the 70s when Erich Von Daniken’s book “Chariots of the Gods” was published.
I was a young fellow then and I remember talking to a grown man who was 90% through that book.
By that point he had become totally convinced angels in the bible were aliens.
The author of that book followed two strategic steps.
1) Convince the reader that his doctrine was unquestionably true
2) Once the mind is convinced – then the scriptures can be referenced and the mind will automatically interpret verses to affirm what it is convinced is unquestionably true.
Imagine you were born in the 17th century and you were taught it is unquestionably true that the earth is flat. And you opened up a bible and read “he stretches the heavens out as a scroll”
Your mind has been conditioned to interpret that text to affirm what it is convinced is true.
I believe that process explains how Calvinists come to see what they see in scripture.
Jesus recognized we read scripture with our own cognitive biases
That is the reason Jesus in Luke 10 asked the lawyer who tempted him “how do you read it”.
ts00 writes, “Impossible.”
Exactly. br.d made it up.
ts00 writes, “Impossible.”
rhutchin
Exactly. br.d made it up.
br.d
It ain’t what the Calvinist knows that gets him in trouble – its what he knows for sure that just ain’t so. 😀
ts00 writes, “And forgiveness means no punishment.”
Forgiveness means no punishment for wrongs committed. Forgiveness does not make a person righteous – it only removes accountability for sins. A person who has been forgiven his sins is still a sinner and still cannot enter heaven. Despite disagreement over the timing of regeneration, all seem to agree that a person must be “born again” in order to enter heaven. You seem to disagree.
Rhutchin writes:
“Forgiveness means no punishment for wrongs committed. Forgiveness does not make a person righteous – it only removes accountability for sins. A person who has been forgiven his sins is still a sinner and still cannot enter heaven. Despite disagreement over the timing of regeneration, all seem to agree that a person must be “born again” in order to enter heaven.”
I’m no theologian, but I’ll risk getting in over my head. I believe you, and Calvinism in general, misunderstand the nature of sin, forgiveness, righteousness and the new birth, in seeing justification as a mere forensic transaction. I would suggest some clues lie in all passages relating to God deeming men as ‘righteous’, such as Noah, Abraham, David and other ‘sinful’, imperfect men. The atonement, in which the law was nailed to the cross, did away with sin and its accompanying curse of death. Where there is no law, there is no sin; where there is no sin, there is no condemnation; where there is no condemnation, there is no death.
God looks upon the hearts of men, and those who wholeheartedly trust him – like Abraham – are deemed ‘righteous’ because of that trust, i.e., faith. That is perhaps a little simplistic, but I believe that is essentially the message of the gospel. Jesus dealt with the ‘sin problem’ by fulfilling and putting aside the ‘righteousness’ requirements of the law. However, centuries before the law came into existence, Abraham was deemed righteous according to his faith. The believer’s righteousness has nothing to do with the law. No man can ever be judged righteous according to the standards of the law, which no man can ever keep, which is why it required Jesus to do so in our stead.
With sin and its punishment – which is death – dealt with, all men now have the opportunity to be ‘born again’, that is, be adopted into the spiritual family of God. As with Abraham, this righteousness is not of our ‘works’ but according to our faith in God and his promise to provide forgiveness for our sin, accomplished through Jesus. As with all who were declared righteous before the atonement, it is based upon a genuine, trusting relationship. God is not looking for little robotic law-keepers, which he could very easily have designed. He desires a genuine relationship with us, in which we look to him as a good, faithful and trustworthy Father, for provision, protection and guidance.
It seems to me that the root of the error of many christians is in seeking a profitable transaction, with the promised ‘goods’ of salvation, which they can put in their pocket and live their lives in security. What God offers us is an ongoing, intimate, eternal relationship, not some ‘get out of hell free’ card. Salvation from his future wrath against those who willfully refuse to accept his freely offered grace is merely the starting point. This provides all men, as Jesus explained to Nicodemus, with the chance to be reborn (spiritually) and transformed into a creature who will, one day, be like Christ as we now long to be. In this glorified, truly righteous state, we will dwell with God for eternity, and begin to experience the delights of comprehending all of his glories.
No doubt my feeble explanation is greatly lacking in my humble attempt to explain things far too grand for my mind to fully comprehend.
TS00,
There is a lot to be said here, but you are correct that the Bible calls lots of people “devout” (and several other such terms). Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1 and Simeon in Luke 2 are among the list of many (Cornelius, “God-fearing” and on and on).
All of these terms bite into Calvinism’s unbiblical idea of all people are all bad all the time.
FOH writes, “All of these terms bite into Calvinism’s unbiblical idea of all people are all bad all the time.”
Snoozing again?? Calvinists say that people are totally depraved but not utterly depraved with God continually restraining them from sin that they would do if God gave them the freedom to do. In addition, Calvinist are clear that whatever perceived “good” that people do is for their own glory and initiated by a depraved heart.
rhutchin
Calvinists say that people are totally depraved but not utterly depraved with God continually restraining them from sin that they would do if God gave them the freedom to do.
br.d
This is so totally funny!
Calvin’s god arm-wrestles against himself – attempting to restrain his own decrees!
Before people are born he decrees every sin they will ever think/say/do – making it their inevitable unavoidable fate – which he makes come to pass at the exact microsecond.
And simultaneously he is -quote “continually restraining them from sin”. The very sins he decreed come to pass.
Calvin’s god is schizophrenic! 😛
rhutchin
Calvinists say that people are TOTALLY depraved but not UTTERLY depraved.
So that would mean that the “many” within the Calvinist church whom Calvin says -quote “have nothing of Christ save the name and appearance” are TOTALLY depraved but no UTTERLY depraved.
Well that is a big relief! Calvinists are not as bad as we thought! 😛
I suspect more however – this is yet another example of how Calvinist play shell-games with words.
ts00 writes, “I’m no theologian,…”
Perhaps that explains your reluctance to deal with the Scriptures. Maybe, you might tell us what you think Paul means when he writes, in Romans 4, “[Christ] who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.”
rhutchin
January 30, 2018 at 1:37 pm
the judge can say, “I forgive you but you still go to jail for your crime.”
rhutchin
February 1, 2018 at 8:27 am
Forgiveness means no punishment for wrongs committed.
br.d
No comment necessary. :-]
br.d writes, “In the court room a person may be said to be “justified” – and in that case it may mean “found innocent”. But that isn’t the concept used by the N.T. authors. What they mean is “forgiven”.
I don’t think so. One may be forgiven, but not declared righteous (justified) – the judge can say, “I forgive you but you still go to jail for your crime.”. I read the NT authors to understand this distinction.
br.d writes, “In the court room a person may be said to be “justified” – and in that case it may mean “found innocent”. But that isn’t the concept used by the N.T. authors. What they mean is “forgiven”.
rhutchin writes:
I don’t think so. One may be forgiven, but not declared righteous (justified) – the judge can say, “I forgive you but you still go to jail for your crime.”. I read the NT authors to understand this distinction.
br.d
To follow that logic —
– The consequence of your crime (i.e. your sin) is eternity in hell.
– You are completely forgiven of your crime (i.e. your sin).
– But you still go to hell for your crime (i.e. your sin).
br.d writes, “To follow that logic —
– The consequence of your crime (i.e. your sin) is eternity in hell.
– You are completely forgiven of your crime (i.e. your sin).
– But you still go to hell for your crime (i.e. your sin).”
There is a two fold problem. (1) people are sinners and unrighteous and (2) people disobey God (i.e. they sin). By His death on the cross, Christ dealt with man’s sin; by His resurrection of Christ, God justified sinners. Thus, Paul says in Romans 4, “Christ was was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” If God had not raised Christ from the grave, no one could be saved. Again, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, “…if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”
Rhutchin in response to a statement on divine forgiveness
The judge can say, “I forgive you but you still go to jail for your crime.”.
br.d
To follow that logic —
– The consequence of your crime (i.e. your sin) is eternity in hell.
– You are completely forgiven of your crime (i.e. your sin).
– But you still go to hell for your crime (i.e. your sin).”
rhutchin:
There is a two fold problem. (1) people are sinners and unrighteous and (2) people disobey God (i.e. they sin). By His death on the cross,….etc
br.d
Tangential and off topic – if one is forgiven by the divine judge and still going to hell anyway.
That that one is unrighteous or a sinner was established in the first premise.
Additionally, following that logic – now we have the “death of the cross – of the Son of God” as that which is applied to bring about one’s forgiveness of sins – and yet the judge who applies that forgiveness still sends you to hell for your crime anyway.