The simple answer is, “No, of course not,” but some Christians have dogmatically insisted that it does based on finite philosophical speculations.
John Calvin, for instance, wrote:
“How foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission… It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as He will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.” (John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11)
Many modern day Calvinists would not go so far as to candidly admit what John Calvin does in the quote above (Calvin’s quote supports the false doctrine of Equal Ultimacy). Yet, can the Calvinistic systematic avoid the necessity of this logical end? Their namesake does not think so.
Certain philosophical commitments led John Calvin (and many Calvinists like him) to adopt a view of God that is not biblically defensible. Our infinite God is not stuck on a linear timeline, looking into the past or the future. He is the timeless great “I AM,” which suggests that His knowledge is less like our set knowledge of past events (or future ones if we had a crystal ball) and more like our knowledge of present reality. We know what is happening right now because we exist in the now, not because we are necessarily determining what we are experiencing in the here and now, though our choices and actions could certainly affect our present reality. Likewise, our infinite God exists in the eternal now, which is beyond our comprehension. Should we (indeed can we) draw dogmatic conclusions about such infinite realities?
To us the past is unchangeable, water under the bridge. The future, however, is as uncertain as the forecast of rain and impossible for us to fully predict or know. The only point where the “changeable” meets “certainty” for us is in the present. But, is that also true of our infinite Creator? What if the past, present and future remains both certain and changeable to God? As some have put it, “God is the eternal now.”
C.S. Lewis so aptly wrote in his book Mere Christianity, “If you picture time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn.” He argues that all times are the present to God insomuch as His knowledge is concerned. Other philosophers contend that God must be either outside of time or in time, whereas Lewis argues, “why can’t it be both? There is no logical barrier to this. Just because there is no creature in our experience that is both inside and outside of time, does not mean God has to be like His creatures.”
Wherever we land philosophically, however, we must refrain from bringing unbiblical conclusions, based upon our finite perceptions, to our understanding of God’s nature. We must accept the revelation of scripture. He is Holy (Is. 6:3). He does not take pleasure in sin (Ps. 5:4). Some moral evil does not even enter His Holy mind (Jer. 7:31). And, He genuinely desires all men, every individual, to come to Him and be saved (Rom. 10:21; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Ezk. 18:30-31).
One presumption that we should bring to scripture is that our God is good and He is in no way implicit in the bringing about of moral evil. He is a loving God who genuinely desires for all to come to repentance so as to be saved (Ezk 18; 1Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; Rm 10:21).
No man will stand before the Father and be able to give the excuse, “I was born unloved by my Creator (Jn. 3:16). I was born un-chosen and without the hope of salvation (Titus 2:11). I was born unable to see, hear or understand God’s revelation of Himself (Acts 28:27-28).” No! They will stand wholly and completely “without excuse” (Rm. 1:20), because God loved them (Jn. 3:16), called them to salvation (2 Cor. 5:20), revealed Himself to them (Titus 2:11), and provided the means by which their sins would be atoned (1 Jn. 2:2). No man has any excuse for unbelief (Rm. 1:20).
————
(Portions taken from chapter 3 of Leighton’s book, “The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology” published by Trinity Academic Press)
*One would also benefit from reading The Consolation of Philosophy (Latin: De consolatione philosophiæ), a work by the sixth century philosopher Boethius that has been described as having had the single most important influence on the Christianity of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance and as the last great work of the Classical Period. Introduction to The Consolation of Philosophy, Oxford World’s Classics, 2000.
*Deut. 29:29 states, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever…”
The twin attributes of God’s omniscience and His omnipotence prove that God has determined every action in time. In every instance God has the free choice to enact His omnipotence to prevent any evil from occurring. The fact that He knows it will occur AND chooses not to intervene as an all-powerful Deity proves His determinations. God knows because He has decreed all things for His purposes. The Fall is a prime example of God’s predetermined intention for mankind to disobey His prescribed will. Just as He prevented Abraham from killing Isaac on the alter, God could have prevented Satan from beguiling Eve and Eve from tempting Adam.
So since the all-powerful Deity freely chose to allow Adam to sin, we know it was His intention for Adam to fall. We also know that God predetermined The Fall because He also predetermined man’s redemption in Christ BEFORE The Fall as Ephesians 1:4 so beautifully reveals. God’s omniscience and determination are inseparable. God knows because He determines AND He determines because He knows. His knowledge of all future events coupled with His choice to freely act or not act proves determinism.
Troy writes:
The twin attributes of God’s omniscience and His omnipotence prove that God has determined every action in time.
br.d
The article has already addressed the fact that some are dogmatic on this.
Being dogmatic is fine for those who don’t let truth get in the way of their beliefs.
For those who choose not to be blind followers of the blind, these things continue to be scrutinized.
Additionally, Universal Divine Causal Determinism (aka Calvinism) represents a minority view in the ongoing considerations within the major contributors and the literature – especially with the over-arching issue of it making God the author of evil.
But for those who choose to be dogmatic:
When the blind lead the blind, they both end up in the same ditch.
But without the ability to know they are in a ditch and without the ability to know they are blind.
You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
“The fact that He knows it will occur AND chooses not to intervene as an all-powerful Deity proves His determinations. God knows because He has decreed all things for His purposes.”
God choosing not to intervene and God decreeing all things are opposites. What would there be to intervene in if he has already irresistibly caused everything? That’s like saying a computer programmer chooses whether or not to later change the code he has already written, only in God’s case the code can not possibly have any flaws, so why would he have to change it?
WW – And for determinists to say “God could have…” is a clear contradiction of their view of view of eternal immutable determinism. There is no “could have” in “immutable” or in their definition of “perfection”. It is sad to think that they can see these contradictions, but then still double-down on their loyalty to deterministic philosophy borrowed from paganism, instead of being willing to rethink the definitions of God’s nature and the nature of reality that Scripture clearly teaches.
This is inaccurate because God “could have” freely chosen a different plan before He enacted His decree. We can’t limit what God “could have” done before He immutably decided to create this world and decree what He has decreed for this creation. God had the right and ability to have done something different before He created. Remember God is only immutable in His nature and His decree. This does not speak to His free choices before Creation.
The idea of “eternal immutable” makes “could have” impossible and even makes “decided” impossible, for there would need to be a “before” that decision if there is to be a “could have” decided differently, but there is no “before” in eternal determinism.
brianwagner writes, “…for determinists to say “God could have…” is a clear contradiction of their view of view of eternal immutable determinism. There is no “could have” in “immutable” or in their definition of “perfection”.”
We don’t know how God thinks, but we do know that God works out His decrees in the course of time – “…God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” While God certainly knows what He wants to do and there is no “God could have…,” People do not know what God has decreed, so people can say, “God could have.” There are any number of scenarios that God “could have” followed for the world – He decreed one and is now working out that specific scenario – it is certain so there is no legitimate “could have.”. Nonetheless, we can legitimately speak of God having originally decreed a different scenario – for purposes of discussion – without doing damage to God’s reputation.
Thank you Roger for affirming the contradiction. I don’t know why you think it is ever “legitimate” to speak about God in a contradictory fashion, since you believe there is “no legitimate ‘could have'” in determinist theology. Misrepresenting what is true about God certainly does “damage” His reputation in the minds of others, in my view, since His character is truth.
The determinist definition of perfection allows for only one settled reality, eternally immutably predetermined. There is no “could have” that can be said as true, once an event takes place unless we are denying that determinist definition of perfection.
brianwagner writes, ” I don’t know why you think it is ever “legitimate” to speak about God in a contradictory fashion,”
I don’t see a contradiction here.
Wildwanderer what you’re neglecting to see is that God’s decree includes His free will choices to engage or not engage with His creation. Whenever He chooses to not engage, it’s still apart of His decree to choose not to engage and this is His determination. When He allows mankind to commit heinous sins, and that too is apart of His decree since we know He has the ability to prevent these heinous sins from occurring. For example, when God chooses not to prevent a rape from occurring, we know that He decreed that rape to occur since He freely chose not to prevent the rape. We know this because an omnipotent Deity has the ability to prevent any sin from occurring. So when a sin occurs, we know it’s part of His decree since He allowed it take place.
Seems to me that the burden of proof is on you. First you have to prove that God ordains everything that happens. How many verses you think I can find that say God hates sin, versus a couple verses you can read from a certain perspective and make them say that God ordains and decrees everything… I frankly don’t care how about your philosophical Notions only about scripture.
Thanks for the post, Leighton. But as you can guess… I think you have opened a fundamental can of worms! 😉 And to me, you seem to be still infected with the same philosophical underpinnings of Calvinism, which also underpin Arminianism and Molinism. You want to speak dogmatically about God’s eternality but also in the same breath say we cannot be dogmatic. And then you say we must be Scriptural too.
You said – “Likewise, our infinite God exists in the eternal now, which is beyond our comprehension. Should we (indeed can we) draw dogmatic conclusions about such infinite realities?” But earlier you dogmatically drew a conclusion about His eternality – “Our infinite God is NOT {emphasis mine} stuck on a linear timeline, looking into the past or the future. He is the timeless great “I AM,” which suggests that His knowledge is less like our set knowledge of past events (or future ones if we had a crystal ball) and more like our knowledge of present reality.”
But what if reality and eternity is a non-contradictory sequential unity, as clearly as Scripture reveals it?
Don’t you think it would be a stretch to think God would use the title of His covenant faithfulness (“I am that I am”) to teach about His eternality? He clearly defines His eternality as sequential – “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps 90:2), “who was and is and is to come” (Rev 4:8). It would be logically contradictory for our past and future to be really in existence for Him, and only perceived as not being in existence for us, as if the Scripture doesn’t speak the truth about the past and future!
But traditional “orthodoxy”, imo, in these matters must teach that the Scriptures do not speak the clear truth, and it must teach that the understanding the nature of God requires definitions, paradoxical to Scripture, borrowed from pagan neo-platonism to define the nature of God correctly.
brianwagner writes, “He clearly defines His eternality as sequential – “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps 90:2), “who was and is and is to come” (Rev 4:8). ”
This is an accommodation by God to make a point to finite people. What exactly does “everlasting” mean to any but a human who is subject to time. God describes Himself as “I am” because there is no concept of time in His being. Prior to God’s creation of the universe, all that was, was God and the concept of “everlasting” is not even relevant or descriptive because time is a useless concept with God. It is relevant to humans because we think in terms of time.
Then, “it must teach that the understanding the nature of God requires definitions, paradoxical to Scripture,”
Or borrowed from Scripture since God describes His nature using terms relative to human nature – suggesting that humans can only understand God in terms that humans can understand. We know that such is terribly inadequate to understand God.
Truth is truth, and Jesus said, God’s Word is truth. Calling God’s descriptions of His sequential reality an “accomodation by God to make a point to finite people” is saying He is not really telling the truth in Scripture.
But for some reason, scholars are able to make the point for the same “finite people” in a accurate way. To say the “concept of ‘everlasting’ is not even relevant or descriptive” for before creation demonstrates how one must believe God is lying or inept to find the right words to describe reality. But platonist pagan philosophers and their “Christian” stepchildren for some reason can do a better job than God did by their using much more adequate terms “to understand God.”
Brian:
Yes…I have noticed that many, many times Reformed defenders will play the “God says it this way ….uh….cuz it’s the only way we would understand it” card.
I have posted many times from my daily readings how God’s Word would be misleading…. even dishonest…. deceptive or outright lying from the many times/ many ways that God says things (that Reformers say are not what they say).
Hundreds of examples:
God is “being patient”
Cain should dominate over the sin crouching at his door…
Paul “persuades” men.
Jeremiah (may times) “I the Lord say if you change your actions, I will change my plan to judge you”
Jeremiah “What you are doing did not even enter my mind.”
Joshua…”Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve….”
Saul “The Lord would have made your kingdom longer….but you…”
God rewards those who earnestly seek Him…
The Eternal says “Because you have …. I will now…..”
“Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest…”
The prodigal son who (Christ said twice was “dead”) “came to his senses” “in a faraway land” ….returned while the Father waited…
“Trust the Lord…. Walk in the Spirit….. Consecrate yourselves…. Resist the devil….. Flee youthful lusts….”
All of these thousands and thousands of passages are de facto “deceptive” “disingenuous” to us the average, finite reader, if in fact NONE of it could have been any different, or the person had no participation in the matter. All was decided/ preordained / immutably baked by God ahead of time.
What is the point of warnings? Good testimonies (“Abel speaks to us even now”)…. the “cloud of witnesses” “follow my example”… what is the point of all this in the determinist system? No point. All has been decided.
brianwagner writes, “Calling God’s descriptions of His sequential reality an “accomodation by God to make a point to finite people” is saying He is not really telling the truth in Scripture.’
I don’t see why it would be a lie. Suppose you are communicating with a group of people in the Amazon forest. You want to convey to them the concept of snow but there is no word for snow, ice, or frozen in their language because they never encounter such things. Whatever words in their language you use to translate the concept of “snow” would be inadequate. It seems to me that you would call any translation of “snow” a lie because it isn’t really snow. So, we have God communicating in the Hebrew language that lacks words to describe how God works and then we translate that into English where there is not a one-to-one correspondence between Hebrew words and English words so the translator uses the best available. Rather than call it a lie, why not recognize the difficulties in describing a God with a language that has no words to accurately describe God and then translating that to a second language.
But Roger, you know, and have done so yourself…after saying God could not find the right words to put in Scripture to describe His nature and actions, theologians seem to find words they think can be dogmatically understood about His nature and actions.
I could definitely describe many aspects of snow accurately with truthful words to those who have not seen it. “From everlasting” is paralleled with “to everlasting” in Ps 90:2. We have a good idea of the continuing sequence of reality into the future. The same is true then of the past.
Are you saying God could not have said “out of timelessness into the everlasting ages to come”? But that is what the neo-platonist infected, deterministic Calvinists say is the truth… making God a liar or at least very deceptive in Ps 90:2. I reject such attacks on God’s character and Word.
brianwagner writes, “after saying God could not find the right words to put in Scripture to describe His nature and actions, theologians seem to find words they think can be dogmatically understood about His nature and actions.”
Of course. In some cases, we have supporting Scripture that gives us insight into the meaning of words. That is not always the case. Thus, where a person is dogmatic about God, His nature, or His actions, we look at the supporting Scriptures advanced as support.
Then, “I could definitely describe many aspects of snow accurately with truthful words to those who have not seen it. “From everlasting” is paralleled with “to everlasting” in Ps 90:2. We have a good idea of the continuing sequence of reality into the future. The same is true then of the past.”
Everlasting is a term that is tied to time and is relative to a human perspective. Finite humans think in terms of time. God was not created – God is and there was never a point where God was not. So, time is inadequate in describing anything about God. We think of the universe being so many billions of light years in diameter. How far can one go outside our universe – out to infinity. However, then you are talking about God. Does God extend out to infinity? Not really. God is and infinity (or everlasting to everlasting) is a poor descriptor of what God is. What does that even tell us about God? What does it tell us about anything before the point where God created the universe? Nothing much that I can see.
Then, “Are you saying God could not have said “out of timelessness into the everlasting ages to come”? But that is what the neo-platonist infected, deterministic Calvinists say is the truth… making God a liar or at least very deceptive in Ps 90:2. I reject such attacks on God’s character and Word.”
If you can explain what Psalm 90:2 means, I guess you could have a point. I think that any term connected with time can only poorly describes God. The problem is that finite beings think in terms of time, so God uses time to communicate something about Himself. We, in turn, recognize the limitations of a phrase like, “from everlasting to everlasting,” in describing God even though it is not inaccurate – it just doesn’t say as much as we want.
Thank you Roger for confirming and giving clear examples that you think even your “scholarly” descriptions of what God’s nature is or is not, is more clear than Scripture.
Dogmatism based on the supposed “clarity” of statements by scholars and made to trump the clarity of statements of Scripture is the soil from which all denominations and heretical groups grow.
My dear Brian, truth itself IS dogmatic. What you believe about the open theistic nature of God is both non-sensical and illogical when we consider a Creator who decided to create a human race without knowing beforehand every action of every creature. Those who teach that God knows only SOME events in the future sound foolish when prophecy REQUIRES that THOUSANDS of choices and events MUST occur in order for prophecies to be fulfilled. God can not perfectly prophecy any events in the future if He only knows the “possible” outcomes of events in the future. God must, by necessity, not only foreknow all of the future; He must also ENSURE its outcome. The ONLY way God can ENSURE the fulfillment of prophecy He has to determine it. Open theism is heretical and impugns God’s character and nature.
Nothing impugns God’s character and nature more than Calvinism.
Calvinism wins this prize hands down every time – no competition comes close!
And Calvinists always win first prize in spiritual-pride and beguiling double-talk. :-]
brianwagner writes, “confirming and giving clear examples that you think even your “scholarly” descriptions of what God’s nature is or is not, is more clear than Scripture.”
If Scripture were equally clear to each person, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
Even when Scripture is clear… people often choose to be “willfully ignorant” Peter said, and because of being unstable or unlearned they twist the Scriptures to their own destruction… in spite of its clarity in many things. (2Pet 3:5, 16)
Respectfully I believe you fall under this category Brian. Just my honest opinion.
Ouch!
Troy, I think the discussion was Roger saying that if everyone could see—everyone would see. (meaning if people were not blinded —or unblinded— then all would respond).
Brian’s response is simply that we see enough people that will look a judge in the eye and spit anyway. His point is that Roger has no biblical grounds to say as a proof-text “if all could respond, all would respond.” (that is a presupposition).
We see plenty of examples of God’s chosen people in Exodus…..the same ones who saw the 10 plagues, were delivered by the blood, saw the parted water, followed the pillars of fire and cloud….ate the manna….and still turn away in unbelief.
Truth right in front of them, some will deny it. It is just not biblical to say that all that could believe did believe. [They were even chosen!]
Brian was referring to those who will deny the beauty of Christ even when is clearly put in front of them.
You turned it on Brian. Are you saying that Brian is twisting Scripture and does not believe in the only-way, only-by-grace, unmerited, all-saving blood of Christ?
I think he does.
I do not believe that aptly describes you, Brian. Even on those things I see differently, I have not seen you twisting scripture, but offering a logical possibility to explain that which has not been made explicitly clear. Nor have I ever found you to be condemning or insistent that all agree with you.
TS00
We must understand that some Calvinists are in a difficult position about other believers who do not hold the determinist line.
Now, I know that Piper and MacArthur’s churches support missionaries from lots of organizations (been there–seen the missionary wall-boards). It is quite possible that they support missionaries who are not Calvinists. And it is absolutely, 100% true that they support missionaries who go out with organizations that are not Calvinistic. They can live with that. Difference of opinion on verses.
Most evangelical mission agencies take people from all positions: charismatic, Baptist, Methodist…. and even reformed! They dont feel that the difference in interpretation of some passages is twisting Scripture.
But young Troy sees our man Brian as willingly twisting the Scriptures.
The irony in all this of course is that according to deteminism Brian would only be doing what God had ordained him to do….nothing “WILL-ing about it! Get it? That would imply that Brian had a free will. Badoom- chii…and he doesnt!
FOH, you make it seem like child’s play – showing how nearly impossible it is to consistently believe or state any coherent determinist concept that can actually make sense or be lived out. 🙂
FOH writes:
The irony in all this of course is that according to determinism Brian would only be doing what God had ordained him to do…nothing “WILL-ing about it! Get it? That would imply that Brian had a free will. Badoom- chii…and he doesn’t!
br.d
I loved the “Badoom -chii” !! :-]
Yes this is a great point. The Calvinist railing against a non-Calvinist is the Calvinist railing against what his god has predestined – thinking that his god may be possibly about to predestine the opposite – and that his involvement will be some kind of predestined divine (super Christian) participation as part of his god’s plan to recruit the non-Calvinist into the sacred doctrine. “Badoom – Chii!”
It never occurs to him at any moment – his thinking was induced into his head through the process of earthly religious indoctrination – because the doctrine reduces every human thought/choice/desire/action to function as a puppet for the divine will.
brianwagner writes, “Even when Scripture is clear… people often choose to be “willfully ignorant” ”
I agree. So let the debate continue on the clarity of Scripture by those presumably neither unstable nor unlearned.
The dirty little secret of Calvinism is that it asserts the very same lie that Satan first proposed in the Garden:
‘God is only concerned about himself. You are nothing but a means to his desire for ‘glory’.’
The lie, which Adam believed to his everlasting shame, is that God is ultimately narcissistic, self-absorbed and jealous of glory. Satan persuaded him to believe that God restricted the fruit of the tree, not for Adam’s good, but because God was selfishly afraid of anyone achieving the status and power that he had. He wanted ALL the glory, ALL the praise of being ‘GOD’ and was terribly afraid of any other creature rivaling his status. This, of course, is the nature of Satan, not God.
This is the exact same lie propagated by Calvinism, though couched in endless euphemisms, most importantly, that God does whatsoever he does for his own glory. That is false. God does whatsoever he does out of goodness, mercy, justice and, especially important for his dependent creatures – love.
This world is not some tidy little laboratory in which God created and controls all of the variables to get the exact results he desires. That is the sort of ‘cooked’ reality we are served by what Paul warned us was ‘science, falsely so-called’. Certainly there are aspects of God’s creation that work according to the prescribed design with which he created them. God gave no power of will, or ability to resist his will to the sun, moon or stars, to protons, electrons and other elements of matter. Science falsely asserts that the entire world runs on just such a mechanistic platform, and Calvinism is its religious affirmation.
Scripture tells an entirely different story, a story of love, creativity and a deep richness of meaning to life. Man is no mechanistic machine, although indeed, the physical body is a marvel of design. Yet even the physical body teaches us much about how God designed man, uniquely in his image. When properly nourished, exercised and cared for, the human body is a thing of beauty and elegance. Then malnourished, abused and filled with toxic, man-made poisons it becomes a diseased, dysfunctional walking death. The false teachers of ‘science’ would have us believe that human disease and dysfunction is a curse of God, that ‘germs’ threaten to harm and destroy our vitality. In truth, it is the rejection of God’s design that has fouled our air, water, food, bodies and the entire earth with poison and death. The same is true with our spiritual being; we have made bad choices, which will destroy our souls just as sugar destroys our bodies.
What does it mean to be made in the image of God? Does it mean that we look like him, that God can wear skinny jeans or perhaps goatees like we do? Few would suggest this. Does it mean we are omniscient and omnipotent like the uncreated Creator? Hardly. Scripture suggests something else, tying man’s being in God’s image to being given ‘dominion’ over the earth and all other creatures.
Man has been given the power of a creative will and the freedom to use it. The sun cannot choose its own path, or decide to not rise at all. The herbs of the field cannot choose to live on doughnuts and Cheetos rather than the necessary vitamins and minerals provided by God through the natural order. The fish of the sea cannot, contrary to ‘science, falsely so-called’, grow feet and walk upon the earth at will. A lion, despite being the king of beasts, cannot sprout wings and fly like the majestic eagle. All lesser creatures must remain ever in the limited domain for which they have been designed.
Man alone has the wits and resources – given to him by God – to build a tower that reaches to heaven; to design a flying machine that allows him to soar like the eagle and a submersible machine that allows him to scour the ocean floor like the fish of the sea. Man was given amazing God-like abilities, being given a rational, creative power of thought, reason and choice.
It is this God-likeness that makes life a joyous adventure, full of creative potential. Man has been given a vast, amazing world full of endless resources upon which he can experiment and design endless wonders. Thus, uniquely in all of creation, man can experience the wonder of creating, the joy of beauty and the excitement of the endless potential of life.
There is, of course, a potential downside to all of this, and it is one with which all are well acquainted. In giving man this marvelous freedom of will and creativity, God designed a creature which had the ability to resist his will. Indeed, it is perhaps inevitable that a creature with a free will eventually discovers that this will can be used in a harmful and destructive manner.
The story of scripture is that God knew full well the ‘risks’ in making men to a great degree free. More, being omniscient and outside of time as we know it, he knew beforehand exactly how men would abuse this freedom to serve their fleshly lusts rather than the good of the world they were given dominion over. The gospel message is that the power of love and faith can, and will, overcome the deceitful power of sin and its destruction.
The message of the Christ is that God loves man, and has devised a marvelous, merciful redemption; offering full restoration of all that has been lost by man’s sinful, selfish rebellion. It is a message of love, freely offered and, when freely received, a new life is begun that God promises will never end in death. This is the message of the Christ, the good news of recreation and life offered to all who will believe in and accept it on God’s terms.
The anti-Christ message is that God is cruel, self-absorbed and this world is all about him and his ‘glory’. He did not create man out of love, but merely to serve his own narcissistic purposes. Indeed, man is less than nothing in his eyes, and he is as willing to create men to abuse, torture and cast aside as he is to shower blessings upon. Because this world is really only all about him and his insatiable desire for glory.
The gospel of Calvinism is an anti-Christ gospel. It distorts not only the meaning of all that Jesus came to do, but it distorts the very nature of God. (Don’t be deceived by the decoy ‘AntiChrist’ of Left Behind fame. Any caricature of God that denies his limitless, sacrificial love as demonstrated by Jesus’ death on the cross is anti-Christ.)
The nature of God as presented by Christ is selfless and sacrificial.
The nature of God as presented by anti-Christ is self-seeking and tyrannical.
The nature of God as presented by Christ is of unlimited, sacrificial love for others.
The nature of God as presented by anti-Christ is of cruel, controlling self-love.
The nature of God as presented by Christ lays down his life for rebellious sinners.
The nature of God as presented by anti-Christ enjoys the destruction of helpless creatures.
The nature of God as presented by Christ says ‘Come, whosoever will’.
The nature of God as presented by anti-Christ says ‘Go to hell’ irresistibly to countless creatures.
Calvinism seeks to hide its dastardly, anti-Christ gospel under the charade of protecting God’s ‘Sovereignty’. He needs no such protecting. He is the great ‘I AM’ and nothing is outside of his control unless he deliberately lays aside some of that control. Calvinism falsely asserts that such sovereign authority demands meticulous, all-controlling determinism. Scripture proves otherwise, in telling the age old story of a world in which men and women acted upon their God-given free wills, some for good, some for evil. Beginning in Genesis, we see God warning Cain that unless he does what is right he will come under the mastery of sin. This is a clear example of the choice all men must make, choosing whom they will serve.
Scripture unfolds the marvelous story of God’s love for wayward men, of his incomparable love, mercy and patience with stubborn, stiff-necked sinners whose very existence depended upon the mercy of the one whom they were resisting. It reveals the astounding forbearance of God with stiff-necked, rebellious men and women who responded to his mercy and blessing with self-serving greed, covetousness and idolatry. It tells the almost unbelievable story of a God who woos man back to himself, as a man woos the bride he adores and longs to have as his cherished possession.
Just as man’s desire for his beloved bride can never be accomplished with a club and chains, God’s desire for a genuine, loving relationship with his creatures is necessarily based on freedom of choice. God has done all of the work, and offers all of the wealth that is his to any who will come and dwell with him in the manner in which they were designed; not as soulless, mechanistic tools, like sun, moon and stars, but as free creatures who may reject the love – and will, for a time – of their maker. Evil exists, temporarily, because God restrains himself from enforcing his desire – and eventual plan – for perfect goodness, justice and love. Never, in any way, shape or form, is evil the result of God’s deliberate determination.
Lastly, because God intends to dwell in eternally good and blissful abundance with his children – those who willingly come to him in humility and love – it is necessary that those who stubbornly refuse his call and refuse to bow to his gracious and loving authority must be punished and removed from the picture. There will be no sin, rebellion, selfishness, hatred, murder or oppression in God’s new creation. All who are there will be there by free choice, and will be transformed and conformed – freely – into the blessed image of God’s Son, Jesus, the Christ.
The incomparable glory that will be revealed in God’s finished work, in the genuine overcoming power of freely offered and freely returned love could never be accomplished by force, or by a meticulously determined and controlled creation.
“Science falsely asserts that the entire world runs on just such a mechanistic platform, and Calvinism is its religious affirmation.”
Actually, scientists seem to be at odds with other scientists on the question of free will. Perhaps man isn’t the only one who makes choices, even subatomic particles seem to choose.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/do-subatomic-particles-have-free-will
TS00… you wear skinny jeans and have a goatee??? That certainly could not have been predetermined but proves libertarian freewill! 🤣🤣🤣
TS00
You already explained all this on Oct 5th….your “once and for all” moment.
This was above the call of duty.
Sorry, I’ll try to get off my soapbox. 🙂
The way I’ve always viewed foreknowledge is systems based. God built the systems and knows the outcomes of those systems. It’s why we see language in the old testament of, “choose to obey and receive life, choose to rebel and see death.” (obviously paraphrasing the many times we see this choice presented in the old testament)
The best way to view the use of the word predestination is not predeterminism, but foreknowledge. That God knows the outcome of our choice, but doesn’t determine our choice.
Morris writes:
The best way to view the use of the word predestination is not predeterminism, but foreknowledge. That God knows the outcome of our choice, but doesn’t determine our choice.
br.d
Yes – I would agree with this – and it makes sense as to the grammatical phrasing within the sentence structure of scripture.
Namely, it never explicitly states anywhere that people *FUNCTION* in such a way that God is authoring/enforcing their every thought/choice/desire/action. The language of scripture presents the sense that God leaves most human functionality “up to” the person.
This is why Calvinism’s interpretation of scripture is a form of sentence restructuring.
When God says “behold I set before you life and death – choose life” the Calvinist is taught to restructure verses like this automatically in his mind while reading the verse.
“Behold I’ve determined some of you to choose life and some of you to chose death. And I’m holding you accountable *AS-IF* your choice were “up to you” – when its really the case, that I’ve already determined what you can choose in advance – and you can’t do otherwise – so the only choice that is really “up to you” is the choice I’ve determined.”
How the human brain can take that original verse, and completely restructure it automatically at the time of reading – and not be aware of that restructuring process – is byproduct of what Robert J Lipton called “thought reform”.
Morris… but you would agree wouldn’t you that what you said would only be true if God only had one possible response for each choice in each system and that He has already made all those choices of His ahead of ours in His mind?… otherwise He would be only knowing the possible choices He could make as still possible and not limited to only one alternative. Right?
Brian,
Can we make this presumption:
“He could make as still possible and not limited to only one alternative. Right?” from the evidence we have from he Bible?
Honestly, I think our libertarian free will is very limited, we just like to believe it’s greater than it is. Choose to obey, or choose to rebel. This is the binary contrast always presented in the Bible. If we rebel, we are slaves to sin, and serve Satan. If we obey, we are slaves to obedience and serve God.
That imo, is the limit of our free will.
Morris, thanks for the question. If I am understanding you correctly… yes and yes. On non moral initiatives, our free will and God’s usually are not confined to two alternative choices… but moral choices are binary, imo. Sometimes we don’t see the moral choice we are making, but in many things we do, there are multiple “goods” to choose from… some better than others.
Dr. Robert Jay Lifton – characteristics of thought reform
• Milieu Control:
This involves the control of information and communication within the group’s environment, and ultimately within the individual. The individual’s way of thinking is eventually influenced so as to interpret data through a filter which affirms the group’s doctrine.
• Black and white thinking:
The world is viewed as black and white and the members are consistently shepherded to strive for group conformity through positive or negative social reinforcements. The individual’s psychological need for a sense of belonging or the need for group approval is at play.
• Loading the Language:
The group uses the common English language, but has its own ad hoc dictionary for words and phrases, altering definitions to conform or affirm the sacred doctrine. Outsiders are often misled by the language, as definitions are altered in subtlety. Dr. Lifton classified this as: “insider language”. The jargon may also consist of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to influence members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.
• Doctrine over person:
Members’ personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred doctrine and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
So that’s why it’s called ‘reformed’ theology – thought reform is its chief agenda.;)
Great catch!
And I agree :-]
Troy:
WW made a good point about the burden of proof being on you.
Your positions is very philosophical, but has no clear biblical backup. We can easily show hundreds of verses that say “I would have” “I never thought to do that” “this never crossed my mind” “now I know that you believe me” …and all the verses that Leighton lists in his article.
None of these make sense in your philosophy. Zero. Wasted ink on parchment.
The Bible is full of places where The Sovereign Lord says in real time….
1 Samuel 15:10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.”
In Chapter 13:13… And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.
“The Lord would have….” Would have?
How can there be a “the Lord would have” based on Saul’s actions ….in your philosophy?
We dont have to scaffold together some sort of idea that “Omniscience plus omnipotence means that God ‘necessarily’ ordained all things…” based on philosophy not scripture
We see examples like the Saul jump out on every page of the Bible. It is a real, living book! Not just some unnecessary manifesto of what has already been decided where we are mere puppets in the immutable drama….that makes a loving God the author of all sin.
Think careful before you lay such things at His door!
FOH those verses you’ve provided are ridiculously easy to explain and I will do so. Then I will show, FROM SCRIPTURE, how God is in meticulous control. But I’m predicting that you will find ways around the plain meaning and intention of the texts I offer.
Re: 1 Samuel 15:10 simply reveals that God has emotions and He chooses to express His emotions in time when interacting with His creation. The fact that the texts mentions “regret” doesn’t, in any way, imply a lack of foreknowledge or predetermination. For example, God states, “The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” -Genesis 6:7
Here we see God showing emotion, however, the emotion shown doesn’t preclude ignorance nor lack of control. How do we know this fact? Because God decreed/planned mankind’s redemption BEFORE The Fall and BEFORE His statements in Genesis 6:7. So if God already planned our redemption BEFORE The Fall (Ephesians 1:4), then in what sense does He “regret” having made us? The answer is that God has extreme sorrow for His creation as a benevolent God, even though He knows man’s sinful actions BEFORE he commits them. The word “regret” in 1 Samuel 15:10 is expressing sorrow, not ignorance of future events.
Re: 1 Samuel 13:13 reveals a HYPOTHETICAL situation that would have occurred had Saul been faithful to God from the beginning. We know it’s hypothetical because God made Saul king KNOWING that Saul would be a rebellious king because God declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). So 1 Samuel 13:13 still doesn’t disprove God’s predetermined decree.
God shows in several places that He meticulously controls all events in time and does so even having given mankind freedom of choice. Although that freedom of choice is actually skewed by mankind’s bondage to sin and Satan (Jn. 8:34, 2 Cor. 4:4). We have the ability to make moral choices, but we’re unable to make spiritual choices (i.e. believe Christ). (See 1 Cor. 2:14)
God’s meticulous control is seen in the THOUSANDS of free will choices of men that culminated in the crucifixion of Christ. These many choices included
-Christ came through a certain blood line
-Creating Herod and Pontus Pilot and ascending them to their respective thrones
-The North Star being placed in the sky
-The fulfillment of countless prophecies that required God to create certain people and even kill certain people. For example, God predicted and determined the slaughter of many babies in Rama and ENSURED its fulfillment by creating Herod, ascending him to a position of power, and choosing not to prevent his edict to kill all babies under 2 years old. This was apart of God’s decree. However, our flesh doesn’t like to talk about this aspect of God’s decree because in our finite minds we think God should show everyone mercy equally. But He doesn’t!! God has mercy on whom He will have mercy regardless of our “free will choices”.
We must thank God for giving us historical events that show us how He deals with His Creation. The Bible gives us a plethora of snapshots that reveal to us how God operates in time. Instead of finding ways around the biblical examples, we need to embrace God’s meticulous decree and be comforted by the fact that the God of this world will do right ALWAYS!! Trying to defend man’s free will or respons-ABILITY is an exercise in futility and oftentimes is an indication of one’s continued rebellion against the God of Scripture.
And yes God determines for certain true believers to believe a lie because God reveals truth to whomever He wants in His own timetable.
Troy, your circular logic is sophomoric, at best. I know God determines all things because . . . wait for it . . . I think he determined things. All assertion. To have knowledge of, or permit, is not the same thing as to determine or compel but merely . . . to have knowledge of. You seem utterly incapable of grasping your opponents’ assertion, which will never lead to greater understanding.
Scripture presents a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent deity who reigns over his creation. Few, if any, question this. Scripture certainly could present a controlling, meticulously determining God who rules over a puppet-like people and creation, who meticulously ordains, prescribes, determines, controls whatsoever comes to pass so that all is necessary and unavoidable. Such is essential to Calvinism, but it is not essential to a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent deity.
The other possibility (perhaps there are others, but these are the two most common interpretations) is that the sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent deity who reigns over his creation has created a people made in his own image, who have freedom of thought, will and action; to such he has chosen to grant subordinate authority, i.e., dominion over the rest of his creation. This would entail the possiblity of mutiny, rebellion, of said free people ignoring and resisting the will of their sovereign authority and going their own way.
You may justly defend your beliefs in one or the other scenario (or some variation) but it is ignorant or dishonest to pretend the alternatives are not real. It is not logically implausible for sovereign rulers to designate authority to underlings, and to hold them responsible for their actions. It is a logical fallacy, begging the question, to assert that God is deterministic because – one asserts – God deterministically caused stated events.
The opinion you appear unable to grasp, let alone debate, is that God’s omniscient foreknowledge and permission of the choices of men who he created with the ability to make unique, free, creative choices is the exact opposite of divine determinism, which asserts that God chose to (many insist must) create controlled creatures who can only do (through whatever means employed) what they are irresistibly ordained and compelled to think, say and do.
Neither scenario denies a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent deity who both created and controls all things. The disagreement is in how God has chosen to exercise his undeniable sovereign authority. It is either genuine ignorance or willful deceit to ignore legitimate dissent and argue as if the challenge has been proven logically untenable, when it is perfectly logical.
Historically, Calvinists began by enforcing their assertions through the power of the sword/stake: ‘Believe or die’. Yet many, knowing scripture, chose to die rather than submit to error.
When God graciously removed the sword from their hand, Calvinists attempted to rule by ‘consensus’: ‘All esteemed, orthodox ‘Christians’ believe . . .’ Yet many, knowing scripture, chose to be cut off from church, friends and family rather than submit to error.
In their latest incarnation,Calvinists seek to win the day through subtlety and dissimulation. Introducing the clever gimmick of ‘Compatibilism’, they seek to assure those who would otherwise reject their horrendous, unscriptural doctrine that they actually believed what everyone else does – they just believed the opposite is true as well! Start with determinism, introduce a fake ‘choice’ whereby men ‘choose’ what God irresistibly demands – then bounce back and forth endlessly between God’s determinism and man’s illusory ‘choice’. Calvinism now gaily asserts that you can have it both ways! Yet many, knowing scripture, refuse to be deceived by cunning and submit to error.
TS00
Again….you nailed it!
Of course God could have created in a way that He controls all things!! He could have created in any way He wanted!
But in the simple reading of His word (not depending on others to scaffold together a philosophical position, or coming to the Word with presupposed definitions of what words “must” mean….or how verses “cannot mean what they say”) it seems that God created in the way you described (i.e. The Sovereign giving subordinate rule to the man “made in His image”).
For our friends to simplistically claim that it is “abundantly clear” that such-and-such is so….just because….well…. we say so…. is well, sophomoric as you said.
At least some commentators were able to back the others away for hurling “heresy” “blasphemer” stones at all who disagree!!
I work all day long with fellow pastors and missionaries who see things differently in Scripture. Some of my dearest friends are Reformed and they know my position. They (dozens? hundreds? of colleagues) absolutely agree that my position is acceptable from within the bounds of Scripture.
Now, I myself have used “abhorrent” as a description for the position that God ordains, brings-about, micro-controls all heinous actions. And certainly even those who hold this position would say that there is some level of “mystery” and abhorrence to this idea. I am not saying that the believers holding this idea are not believers (heretics) —-and are not seeking to please the Lord and live for Christ. I am just saying that they have to live with the description that they offer.
As I’ve stated to FOH, I’ll state to you TSS00. You’re refusing to believe ALL that God has revealed about Himself in Holy Writ and you are in denial of the “hard sayings” of God. May God reveal these truths to you in His own timetable.
ts00 writes, “The other possibility…to such he has chosen to grant subordinate authority,…”
Because you change the context to “subordinate authority,” you negate this being an “other possibility.” You now allow a God who meticulously ordains, prescribes, determines, controls whatsoever comes to pass so that all is necessary and unavoidable who can then grant subordinate authority to man as part of His meticulous control – this because man’s actions are now subordinate to God’s will and God’s will prevails.
Rhutchin writes: “You now allow a God who meticulously ordains, prescribes, determines, controls whatsoever comes to pass so that all is necessary and unavoidable who can then grant subordinate authority to man as part of His meticulous control – this because man’s actions are now subordinate to God’s will and God’s will prevails.”
This is logically impossible. Granting authority to a subordinate is the opposite of retaining a meticulous control that ordains, prescribes, determines, controls whatsoever comes to pass. God may either retain meticulous, determinative control or set aside meticulous, determinative control – he cannot do both at the same time. You are demonstrating exactly what I earlier described, i.e., the Calvinist waving his magical ‘trump all logic’ wand and saying ‘Aha, two opposite and contradictory things are both true! Now we can have it both ways.’ Except that two opposite and contradictory things can never be true at the same time, and Calvinists cannot have it both ways. Either God deterministically controls all things (A), or he doesn’t (not-A). Both cannot be true at the same time in the same way, and no amount of dissimulation can change the essence of logical consistency.
Calvinists have 1001 euphemistic-terms to masquerade their conceptions as non-deterministic.
Here the term “subordinate” is deployed as a euphemism for “total manipulation”.
Like a puppet FUNCTIONS as “subordinate” to its controller.
Like a robot FUNCTIONS as “subordinate” to its controller.
So in Calvinism, all creatures FUNCTION as “subordinate” to their controller.
Language is a wonderful barometer of human urgencies.
The fact that Calvinists have 1001 euphemisms in their language is a red-flag for the discerning Christian.
Revealing aspects of their belief system – they seek to hide.
br.d., When I was yet a naive, trusting pewsitter in a Calvinist church, it was semantic tomfoolery that sent up the first red flags in my subconscious mind. At first I assumed it was my own past and presuppositions which made it seem as if my pastor frequently said one thing, only later to affirm its polar opposite. I would question others, who, even blinder than I, looked at me as if I had two heads. Why would anyone ever doubt their beloved leader? I knew I was on my own in investigating this.
I began to keep a journal, writing down the troubling things my pastor said. My suspicions soon proved true. Like a politician, he cleverly spoke out of both sides of his mouth, affirming determinism one moment and free will the next, law, then grace, faith as a gift and faith as an individual response, as if they could harmoniously coexist. I honestly did not know what to do with this, for, to my logical way of thinking, I did not see how anything but blatant dishonesty could permit one to advocate such radically opposing propositions.
I admit that this still perplexes me. I have friends and family members, most of whose thinking was forged by this pastor, who yet reflect his illogical thinking. They believe that all inconsistency can be shrugged off to ‘mystery’, because that is what they have been taught. to do with logical contradictions. They appear to have no issue with abandoning all meaningful sense of logic when embracing the claims of trusted authorities.
I discovered that this was true in other realms as well, including history, science, politics and current events. Satan has used every hierarchical institution and media on earth to accustom us to deception and contradiction, and men appear so confused that they no longer know how to think logically. A politician or nation can launch endless brutal assaults and still be considered a ‘peacemaker’ as long as he mouths the right words. Medical science can push therapies or flu shots that are only 10% effective, and people never grasp that this means they are 90% ineffective, or worse than useless when you add in the harmful side effects.
It seems that unless and until people are aware of semantic trickery they are utterly incapable of arming themselves against being deceived. The fact that the vast majority of the institutions of men are not based upon truth and God’s ways creates far too great a cognitive dissonance for most people, or calls for much more personal diligence than they wish to pursue. In many cases, we remain deceived because it serves our selfish interests, in spite of being spiritually and eternally detrimental to us. Personally, I find God toppling one idol after another, until there is little in this world in which I can put my trust. Were it not for my belief in the goodness and faithfulness of God, I would be without hope. It has been something of a battle (huge understatement) for me to surrender the many idols in which I have put my misplaced trust, and I suspect it is not yet over.
I always appreciate your testimonies truthseeker!!
You have a knowledge of what its like to be on the inside of Calvinism that is worth its weight in gold.
I think its awesome that Calvin’s beguiling double-talk is what alerted you that something was wrong.
Although Calvinists try to make their language mimic scripture as much as possible, there are tell-tale signs that their language is definitely not the language of scripture. And the beguiling double-talk is the most prevalent red-flag.
Calvinists frequently remind me of a principle revealed in Psalm 115:8 concerning man’s conceptions of false gods.
“They that make them become like unto them – and so becomes everyone who trusts in them.”
The principle is – We become like what we worship.
Calvinist’s have a deity who speaks with forked-tongue.
So it makes sense – That is the reason Calvinist language is a forked-tongue language.
There but for the grace of God go I!
TS00
Always appreciate your posts!
1. Yes….pastors from the pulpit. It can be disappointing. One bright spot. My daughter goes to a “Bible Church” that was of course infiltrated by the new wave of neo-reform (YRR). They said the lead pastor got his doctorate influence by RC Sproul. Uh-oh…I thought.
I have visited with her countless times at church and every time (w/o exception) he has preached the most practical, your-walk-with-God-depends-on-you, 4-things-you-can-do-for-a-better-XYZ….messages I have heard in a long time. Really good stuff….and very, very inconsistent with Calvinism. Why?
Because no one can really live like a Calvinist. He can’t preach “The Doctrines of Grace” every week. Everyone knows …. that we have decisions to make…. that we must “choose for ourselves this day whom we will serve”…..that we have to walk in the Spirit….. that we have to fix our eyes on Christ….that we have to resist the devil….that we have to draw near to Christ (and He will react and draw near to us)…. that we have to “persuade men to Christ”…. that we have to love one another…that we must do unto others as we would have them do to us. Those ideas have to be taught and put into practice.
Nobody wants to be told that every decision we make has already been determined.
No preacher (even the die-hard Calvinist) is gonna preach that ever decision we make has been determined. That’s a very short sermon.
2. Yes….let all those trappings of conventional religion (even in the form of “we’re not religious” church-ism) slip away and look for the Christ that lived, died, and lives. He tolerates a lot in His church (you must roll in the aisle to know Christ; you must preach our “doctrines of grace” to know Christ; you must use our translation to know Christ). But the true Christ is there. And He “rewards those who earnestly seek Him.”
Seek Christ. That Bible says that we can, that we must, and that He rewards those who do.
ts00 writes, “This is logically impossible. Granting authority to a subordinate is the opposite of retaining a meticulous control that ordains, prescribes, determines, controls whatsoever comes to pass.”
Of course not. If you grant authority to a subordinate, your purpose is that he accomplish what you want done. If you are building a house and you grant authority to someone to oversee the project, you expect to see a house at the end. If you are God, then you know everything that the subordinate does from beginning to end. If the subordinate steps out of line, you immediately step in to take corrective action. I don’t see the problems you imagine to exist.
Then, “Either God deterministically controls all things (A), or he doesn’t (not-A). ”
If God does not deterministically control all things, then who, other than God, is in control and therefore equal to God?
Troy:
I appreciate that you want to defend God’s honor. Really.
I do not understand how you can write a rebuttal to the fact that God says He regrets things by using another verse that says He regrets things?
————–(Troy)—–
For example, God states, “The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” -Genesis 6:7
——————–
You see, I just take Him at His word. You tell Him how He must be.
Even in your defense of the determinism – immutability of all preordained decisions by God you use non-determinist language and arguments:
1. Using the additional “God regretted” verse to disprove that He regrets.
2. (Troy) “God has emotions and He chooses to express His emotions in time when interacting with His creation.” The concept of “interacting” requires that we act and He reacts…..That is not determined language. God has emotions? He can “be pleased” or “be saddened”??? Now you have to deal with Him “changing”. One minute not sad—-we do something— He is saddened. Works for me…. but not for you. AT ALL. He no longer fits your definition of immutable and impassible.
3. (Troy) “He knows man’s sinful actions BEFORE he commits them. The word “regret” in 1 Samuel 15:10 is expressing sorrow, not ignorance of future events.” — Now you have God only “knowing” man’s sinful action (wait, He decreed/ willed/ ordained) all those sinful actions…right? Now you have God “expressing sorrow”. Sorrow? For what He Himself decreed? How is that any different than regret? They both imply that He has some kind of pain/ sorrow/ sadness for the actions of someone else (or His own actions). Are you saying He ordains that man sin so that He can show His sorrow (for what He decreed) so He then can change His plan? That is the message we are to get from a simple reading of God’s word?
4. (Troy) “Re: 1 Samuel 13:13 reveals a HYPOTHETICAL situation that would have occurred had Saul been faithful to God from the beginning….” What? Can you hear yourself? “had Saul been faithful”…. so he could have been? Wait….you think you have solved our issue by putting the word hypothetical in there??? Why does a deterministic, all-controlling, pre-ordained-all-events God put anything “hypothetical” in His word? Troy…..you are very inconsistent and illogical….. and not using Scripture.
5. (Troy) “God shows in several places that He meticulously controls all events in time and does so even having given mankind freedom of choice.” Here you just invent that there are “several places” where we see that He meticulously controls “all events” (where are they?). You also invent the idea that He does this while giving mankind “freedom of choice” (that part we see all over the Word!). You cant even hear yourself contradicting yourself. Does God meticulously control some events? Yes!! All events….evil, rape, torture, sex-trade of 6-year-old girls? No! What you are laying at His door is abhorrent.
I’m afraid the rest of the post is so full of bravado that I can’t quite figure it out. Of course our Sovereign Lord can meticulously arrange events to bring about the second most amazing event in history (birth of Christ) and the most amazing event (death and resurrection of Christ)!!! Of course He can and He did. But to extrapolate from that, that our Lord ordained all genocides in history and all women being carried off into sex-slavery is a very bold claim, and not shown from Scripture.
Perhaps you can live with declaring this kind of created-all-evil “Good News” to all you meet…. but I could not. I found myself sick when telling people that God ordained all the evil we can see. They would look at me and ask if I was serious and exclaim how ridiculous and seemingly non-biblical that “good news” was. Of course…. I just chalked all that up to God making them see it as “foolishness.”
Make my position be whatever I need it to be. People say it doesn’t make sense from the Scripture…..just pull out the “foolishness” card.
FOH I’m sorry sir but you are simply refusing to believe ALL that God has revealed about Himself in Holy Writ. You are simply in denial and it’s not within my power to make you see/understand truth. God alone has this power and I SINCERELY pray that He reveals these truths to you in His timetable.
Troy:
1. Not a very comprehensive answer, that. I am listing specific issues, verses, concepts….. and they never get answered. Your answer is almost always a kind of condescending “Sir, you just can’t see the obvious.” If any attempt of biblical support is made it is usually a “God is above all things” kind of vague answer. Of course we all believe those broad strokes concepts of divinity and sovereignty. But being Sovereign, He can create in any way He wants. And Scripture (tons of it that I am listing!) show that He gave some autonomy to man. I still find it interesting/ humorous that you keep saying “ALL of Scripture” for your position, yet it is based on 40-50 verses, ignoring or pooh-poohing the thousands of verses to the contrary.
2. You say I am “refusing to believe” which of course rebuts your position also. I cannot refuse or seek to believe anything. I only get what I get (according to you).
3. You say, “God alone has this power and I SINCERELY pray that He reveals these truths to you in His timetable.” which of course rebuts your position also. (A) If it is God alone….then your prayers mean nothing. (B) In your philosophy His decision to reveal or not reveal to me was made eons ago…. and has nothing to do with real time (or your prayers).
Phew… seems like the more you talk the more I am confused. I need Scripture. If it is abundantly clear that He has foreordained all actions, sins, doubts, fears, thoughts, rape, murder, please support that from Scripture.
Troy,
You’re still conflating foreknowledge with determinism. They are two different words. One is in the Bible, the other is not.
God can know the outcome of our choices without causing them.
Let me give you simple analog.
Let’s say you’re at the top of an icy hill, you have your phone in hand and decide to put it away to carefully make your way down the hill. Let’s say instead, you refuse to put your phone away and fall on your face.
Did God make you oblivious to your surroundings or was that your choice? We all know that if you aren’t paying attention on an icy Hill, you’re going to fall on your face. That foreknowledge doesn’t make us God, nor does it make God deterministic. God’s knowledge of outcomes is because He created heaven and earth. Not because he controls man like we’re the sea and the wind. The wind and sea have to obey when He speaks.
Man doesn’t and often rebels. As did Jonah, then God humbled him. Now at that point, Jonah could have remained hard hearted to God and been consumed by the whale. Another prophet would have taken his place, as we’re told by God in his conversation to Elijah, when Elijah retreated from Jezebel. How many did he have in reserve that haven’t bowed a knee to Baal?
Thousands. God’s choice to use Elijah was dependent on Elijah’s obedience.
We see the same with Moses. When Moses disobeyed God, God came to him to kill him. God would have killed him, had his wife not circumcised Moses’ son.
The entire history pivoted on her decision to obey God.
I know you find this incredulous, but it’s what the Bible tells us about man and God. Genesis 1, shows the reason. God gave mankind dominion over the earth. We are mini lord’s of the world. Nowhere in scripture is that forcibly removed by God, and it’s the reason Jesus told us to pray for *His* will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Normally our will is done here.
God doesn’t want robots, he wants obedient servants.
Morris:
Nice job.
It is of little use. I have listed hundreds of such interactions between God and man where the outcome could have gone one of several ways. But somehow that all disappears with a swift “It cannot be that way Sir!”
Jonah is a good example. He disobeyed. God could have let him go and taken another. He pursued Jonah and made life difficult. Jonah STILL could have refused (and been consumed as you said) but he said…..okay I get it. Jonah was still not happy with the outcome.
It is hard to believe that all that drama was exactly how God planned it to be…. (God makes it pretty clear in Scripture that many times people do not do His will).
And the bigger questions is …..why? Why all the drama and warnings and admonitions?
We cannot learn anything from this anyway….since we cannot know/ do/ learn/ change anything that has not already been pre-planned by God.
Like a friend of mine, a former Calvinist would say (who no longer follows Christ) —go ahead and do whatever you want….cuz whatever you do is what God decreed from the beginning of time anyway.
Here lies the problem as Leighton says Troy,
“cuz whatever you do is what God decreed from the beginning of time anyway.”
God decreed mass murder? God decreed rape of children?
What kind of God do you believe in?
What does the Bible say of God?
“He is holy, so you be holy in all your conduct.”
But it’s not *my* conduct if God decreed it. It’s his.
Let’s take another analogy. Let’s say I give my wife a mind control drug to force her to love me. Then I use that mind control drug to make her rob a bank.
AM I a sinner for decreeIng Her behavior? Absolutely. And the love we had was not real. True love cannot come from force.
That’s why God gave mankind dominion, lordship over the Earth. Genesis 1. God wanted us to make sure we knew this, put it right in chapter 1 of the Bible.
Then after the fall, he immediately tells Cain that he doesn’t have to sin, that he can rule over that desire. That’s a declaration of free will given to Cain. You as a determinist immediately run into a problem four chapters into the Bible. Man is Lord of the earth, and after the fall, Cain had free will. To think otherwise is to make God a liar in both cases.
That lordship was not lost. God affirmed it again with Noah.
It’s why Jesus tells us to pray for His will to be done here. Normally our will is done.
Morris:
Nicely put in such few words (unlike me!!)
A possible response from the other side will be that for some reason (their version of) “sovereignty” must ‘necessarily’ mean that all that happens is what He wants/ declares to happen. That of course lays all that you described at the door of a God who tell us to love our enemies.
We know that God is the creator of all things and that He is capable of creating in such as way as to make what you describe (man dominion on earth, free will to choose, etc) without compromising His glory, power, overall dominion, eternal purpose, and counsel of His will. To say He must control / ordain all sin —just— to make sure everyone knows He is God and that He maintains His purposes, makes Him pretty weak (as A.W. Tozer has said so well).
The God in the Bible brings about His purposes despite man’s sin….. not by being the author of all sin.
But to get God “off the hook” (of being the origin and decree-er of sin) they claim that man “does have free will.” Which of course we have seen explained soooooo many times here as “free will to do what God has decreed.”
And ’round n ’round we go…..
FOH,
The more I read the Bible the more I see God wanting man to obey, not forcing man to obey.
Part of the issue comes from misreading the new testament. Besides the translation issues of making foreknowledge predestined, or choice, election, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the early church and the purpose of the new testament. The gospels, are the life of Christ and he is in the process as the living word, (Jews would have understood that as the living Torah, the living law) of changing the covenant from being writ on lambskin, to being written on our hearts.
The other part of this to recognize is that the early Church used what we call the old testament to reveal the new covenant and the gospel. The writings of Paul, James, John, and Peter are exegeting the Old Testament. So to further exegete an exegesis is to get away from the original intent, not closer to it.
Any Christian should have a goal to imitate Paul and be able to show the good news from the old testament as He did weekly on the sabbath in the synagogues.
Yes Morris,
And several of the themes of the OT:
1. Passover —
(Repeated more times and in more books than any event). What happened there? God provided a free-choice way of escape. Perfect Lamb. Blood. Blood on the doorpost (cross). Solution provided by God to anyone who would apply the blood in faith….. and stay in the house.
Blood. Not enough to have the blood in the bucket.
Application in faith.
2. Leaders and obedience —
Judges, Kings, prophets…..in all those scenarios we see obey–bless—stray—disobey—judge—return—bless— stray —disobey —judge. We see the resounding theme “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve…”
No amount of “we are too dead to obey, Sir!” can negate all the thousands of examples in the OT.
3. Grafting in to the “chosen” —
The OT gives us many examples of not-chosen people being grafted in to become part of the chosen people. Ruth, Rahab. There is nothing in there but personal faith that made the difference. Hebrews 11 even makes that clear about Rahab.
4. God does not always get what He wants —
Yes, I know that sounds like flippant heresy on my part….but how many hundreds of times does He tell us in the OT “I did not want you to do that!!!” ?
For Piper and others to invent “the two wills of God” to teach us the convoluted, double-talking idea that “it is His sovereign will that we sin but not His will of command” ….leaves us confused and without scriptural support.
Let’s just admit it. We sometimes do things that God does not want. That does not make us stronger than Him. It shows us clearly to be weaker.
There are many other OT themes. But there are none that support determinism.
FOH writes: “To say He must control / ordain all sin —just— to make sure everyone knows He is God and that He maintains His purposes, makes Him pretty weak”
I would agree, and add that scripture reveals how God actually demonstrates who and what he is and how he responds to evil in Ezekiel:
“Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels, who have rebelled against me; they and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. The people also are impudent and stubborn. I send you to them, and you shall say to them: ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that there has been a prophet among them. . . . And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear; for they are a rebellious house.” Ez 2:3b-7
Note how these verses repudiate many of the false assertions of Calvinism. The people are not ‘Totally Depraved’, i.e., unable to hear, think or do what God commands. In fact, God repeatedly emphasizes the exact opposite: The people are fully capable of hearing and obeying, but they are a stubborn and rebellious people who REFUSE to ‘hear’ (meaning not only hear but obey) God’s will. God is essentially removing all possibility of Israel claiming that they never ‘heard’ God’s will, either because God had never spoken clearly or because they were cursed with a sin nature that made them unable to hear or respond. Thus, all mouths will be stopped, for Israel will know truly that there has been a prophet (one who speaks the words of God) among them.
No Total Depravity. The people could and did hear and understand the voice of God.
No Unlimited Election. God spoke to all the ‘elect’ nation of Israel with the same commands and offers.
No Irresistible Grace. God spoke, and it was up to the people whether or not they ‘heard’ (obeyed) or did not ‘hear’ (rebelled).
One need merely read the rest of Ezekiel to see the remaining pillars of Calvinism toppled, as God clearly, repetitively states that any individual who commits evil will be punished, and any individual who turns from wickedness will be considered righteous. Whosoever will, and whosoever won’t. And there is no ‘Get out of hell free’ guarantee, as God emphasizes that the wicked can choose to turn from wickedness, and once declared righteous, can voluntarily return to wickedness. In any case, man will be held accountable for his freely chosen actions. No magic robes of righteousness (to disguise sin) are issued – God demands genuine righteousness (which is no to be mistaken for sinless perfection, but a heart that seeks to do God’s will and repents of any and all sin).
Indeed!
One has only to read the entire Bible without prejudicial Calvinist lenses on and what you say will shine through.
It is my guess that our reformed friends on this blog “were taught” much of their prejudice. I certainly was.
My case is that I was a simple believer with the general ideas one gets when reading Scripture (God loves everyone; Christ died for everyone who will put simple faith; man makes evil choices—but can make good ones too —not “so dead”…etc etc). Later in Bible school and seminary I was “taught” Calvinism and repeatedly reminded that unless i followed I was proposing a “man-centered Gospel” that makes me sovereign and God at my control.
Can’t have that!! So I swallowed!! then rubbed other people’s faces in it….
Years later put the books aside and read huge portions of Scripture. Did not make any sense.
Then looked for possible alternative interpretations to the 40-50 verses on which all of my Calvinist prejudices were scaffolded.
Ha! They were easy enough to find!!!
Example: the very potter in Romans 9 that gives 90% of the octane needed for Calvinism is the potter mentioned in Jer 18/19. That Jeremiah potter has NOTHING (zero, nil) to add to the Calvinist position. The potter in Jeremiah strongly refutes the Calvinist idea.
So for me….the unraveling / unveiling of Calvinism did not take long in the light of Scripture.
I found it to be a man-made idea, prompted by Greek philosophy.
FOH writes, “It is my guess that our reformed friends on this blog “were taught” much of their prejudice. I certainly was.”
In my case, I learned through study of the Scriptures and came to find that what I learned was consistent with that taught in Calvinism or the reformed faith. That anyone bases his beliefs on what he was taught merely identifies the person as not having any beliefs at all. If your claim to being a Calvinist is that you were “taught” to be a Calvinist, then you were never actually a Calvinist or anything else. It is crucial that people do as the Bereans before accepting anything anyone tells them about the Scriptures.
ts00 writes, “Note how these verses repudiate many of the false assertions of Calvinism. The people are not ‘Totally Depraved’, i.e., unable to hear, think or do what God commands. ”
It is not that people are unable to hear, think or do what God commands. People do hear what God says and think about what God says and they respond to God all the time – they reject what God tells them to do. That is the point of Total Depravity – man is unable to do what God says because man does not want to do what God says. Don’t you claim to have sat under Calvinist teachers? Did you sleep during class?
A good explanation of ‘dead in sins’ I quote from a comment on another blog, quotation marks added:
“”And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” Col 2:13-14 NKJV
What Paul seems to clearly show here, is that there is a death sentence hanging over us, as sinners against God, and that it is, in this sense, which we are said to be dead. This is seen by the way that we are made alive. In forgiving our sins, Jesus has nailed this Death Decree to the cross, canceling it, thereby making us “alive”.
Phillips translates verse 14 this way:
“…he has utterly wiped out the written evidence of broken commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it to the cross.”
“The _wages_ of sin is death (Ro 6:23). Sin, _when it is full-grown_, brings forth death” (Ja 1:15). This is how we should understand the relationship between sin and death. Death is not the immediate result of sin but its inevitable consequence. The bottom line is there is no reason, biblically speaking, to assume that men die spiritually as the result of committing sin. Or that we are born in that condition, for that matter. Rightly understood, then, it takes a lot of the wind out of the sails for the Calvinist and the underpinnings of his system.”
– John Johnson
I totally reject Calvinism’s conception of Total Depravity, that any man is born ‘guilty’ before he actually commits any wrongdoing.
I would liken the ‘sin nature’ more to the ‘fat nature’. If I am being very careful about how I eat, working out and feeling very fit, I have much more incentive to resist the temptation of sweets, say, Christmas cookies. I do not want to waste all of the effort invested in attaining a ‘fit’ status. However, once I fall off the wagon, once I indulge a bit, it becomes much harder to resist future temptation. And if I totally lose it, becoming obese, I lose all incentive to skip the sweets. When Christ wipes away our guilt, restoring us to total cleanness before God, we have a new incentive to resist temptation and not become, once again, enslaved to it. We do not want to waste the precious, costly effort Christ put forth for us, to enable us to be renewed to the pristine condition of oneness with God.
We know what being a slave to sin is like, and how impossible it is to escape when the sentence of death hangs over us anyway. It is only when that death sentence has been removed by Jesus that we have a real, powerful incentive to resist sin and its ramifications.
ts00 quotes other to say, “The bottom line is there is no reason, biblically speaking, to assume that men die spiritually as the result of committing sin. Or that we are born in that condition, for that matter. Rightly understood, then, it takes a lot of the wind out of the sails for the Calvinist and the underpinnings of his system.” I think he then says, “I totally reject Calvinism’s conception of Total Depravity, that any man is born ‘guilty’ before he actually commits any wrongdoing.”
This is the basic argument attributed to Pelagius. So, we have two views on the issue.
FOH writes, “Like a friend of mine, a former Calvinist would say (who no longer follows Christ) —go ahead and do whatever you want….cuz whatever you do is what God decreed from the beginning of time anyway.”
Which tell us that your friend was neither Calvinist nor saved.
Simple question to our Reformed friends (I have posed similar ones but they go unanswered).
When you woke up this morning and thought back on your day yesterday, did you see any sin in it? Let’s say you got angry, or cheated, or, heaven forbid, looked at something on a TV or computer that you shouldnt have.
Did you say, “Thank-you Lord for helping me carry out your will yesterday”?
Do you say, “Help me Lord to not do those things today.”
If you say the first one…. you are a consistent determinist-Calvinist, Reformed believer (all your sin was God’s will).
If you say the second…. then the next question is simple: Were those things you did God’s will? If not—you did something that He did not want.
This aint rocket science.
A Calvinist pastor friend of mine (still going to church) cheated on his wife with a woman in church. He no longer pastors, but still believes. He is consistent in that he believes that God willed him to cheat on his wife and leave with another woman (how could he not believe that?)
Of course his former-Calvinist, former-wife does not think it was God’s will!
FOH, I appreciate your goal of remaining respectful and dignified. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that many – not all – Calvinists are not interested in furthering true understanding, nor in clarifying their positions. The dissimulation, the rocking back and forth and trying to pretend that two contrary things are both true, is very often a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive people into not rejecting what honest, just, God-respecting people will always reject – A God who is the author of Evil.
I suspect that Troy, on the other hand, is one of those who has been sucked into this thing, brainwashed and taught to read from the script without thinking. He does not display the finesse of a deliberate deceiver, but appears to be a genuine, loyal cheerleader, unable to see the errors in logic and contradictions of his own memorized talking points. This sort has hope, but it requires abandoning blind loyalty and earnestly seeking to view and understand both perspectives. I honestly believe the difference between me and so many others who consider these things is that I was genuinely willing to sacrifice my own beliefs, either way. I refused to rule Calvinism out unexamined, and gave it a decade to prove itself. I do not claim any ‘ism’ but earnestly seek and pray for deeper understanding each and every day, wherever it may lead. The good news is, I once again have a gospel of love, justice and hope to offer whosoever I meet, one that requires no ‘hiding the scary stuff’ or dissimulation of what I genuinely believe about God. My heart once again is alive and rejoicing in a God who loves all men, and freely offers all forgiveness of sin and life everlasting – whosoever will, with no ‘wink, wink, whosoever God chooses and enables, that is’. Praise our glorious, merciful and loving God that no one need ever die in their sin, unless they knowingly, willfully reject God’s freely offered love!
FOH writes, “If you say the first one…. you are a consistent determinist-Calvinist, Reformed believer (all your sin was God’s will).”
If you set out to sin and God does not stop you when He has the power to do so, is it God’s will that you sin? The Calvinist says, Yes. What do you say?
Then, “A Calvinist pastor friend of mine (still going to church) cheated on his wife with a woman in church. He no longer pastors, but still believes. He is consistent in that he believes that God willed him to cheat on his wife and leave with another woman (how could he not believe that?)”
We might also conclude that it was God’s will to remove the man from the pastorate, so God did not intervene to prevent his adultery. God willed the man to commit adultery because the man was a scoundrel and God wanted to expose his true character to himself and to the world. The world understands, but he seems to be in denial.
LUIS DE MOLINA – ON CALVIN’S THEOLOGICAL DOUBLE-TALK
Excerpts taken from “Luis de Molina – Kirk R. MacGregor”
Molina judged Calvin’s view of God’s treatment of people. Molina recognized Calvin’s conception entailed a “differential” treatment of people in God’s distribution of grace, which Molina noted:
1) Contradicts God’s universal salvific will which is plainly asserted in Scripture
2) Requires the deployment of dishonest language in its attempts to explain away its un-biblical implications. Molina studied Calvin’s arguments asserting God having two wills – a “revealed will” which operates in direct contradiction to a “hidden will”. Molina described Calvin’s language as THEOLOGICAL DOUBLE-TALK. (Molina, Commentaria, 14.13.9)
3) For Molina this was tantamount to saying that GOD LIES IN WHAT HE REVEALS TO HUMANITY, which contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the essential truthfulness of God. (Molina, Commentaria, 16.1.)
4) Molina discerned Calvin’s notion of God’s “hidden will” was predicated on a distorted definition and misapplication of the attribute of divine incomprehensibility – which that human can never really know what God is like – as contradictory to O.T. scripture in which God reveals his will and his longings towards all people, and contradictory to N.T. scripture, in which Jesus reveals the Father’s will and longings towards all people, as well as the N.T. apostolic authors.
5) Molina defined a biblical understanding of human incomprehensibility of God, as meaning that humans, who are finite beings, can never fully apprehend the infinite set of propositional truths about God – but can only apprehend a finite subset of those propositional truths.
However, humans can apprehend that finite subset of truths revealed in Scripture and those revealed by God’s design and ordering of nature, as well as the discernment of necessary truths, which humans can apprehend through philosophical and theological investigation.
However, for Molina, the finite subset of propositional truths that humans can apprehend about God must be logically consistent with the full infinite range of propositional truths about God. God is not the author of confusion, and one divine truth does not contradict another divine truth.
So Molina emphasized, there cannot be anything, which God reveals about himself that stands in contradiction to something else which God reveals about himself. And Molina concluded that Calvin clearly appealed to a doctrine of “divine contradictions” in order to support his conceptions. (Molina, Commentaria, 19.6.29)
I have not read a great deal of Molina, but enough to believe that he saw some of the errors of the Protestants, as led by Calvin, et.al. Contrary to many in Reformed circles who seek to allege that all but ‘heretics’ agreed with the sweeping tide of Calvinism, Molina (and others) recognized the undeniable fact that historical Protestant doctrine (it has branched out into multiple streams of thought since then) declares God the author of Evil. He wrote, I would assert correctly:
“What grievance will God have on Judgment Day against the wicked, since they were unable not to sin as long as God did not efficaciously incline and determine them to the good, but rather solely by His own free will decided from eternity not so to determine them? Most assuredly, if this position is accepted . . . God’s justice with respect to the wicked vanishes, and a manifest cruelty and wickedness is discerned in God.”
Yes I totally agree.
I can’t remember the author and book at the moment but I remember a Christian historian writing about Calvin’s writings and specifically on how Calvin totally assumed everything his imaginations could come up with concerning god were 100% inspired by the Holy Spirit – therefore he was right and anyone who disagreed with whatever he imagined must be wrong.
When a man gets to the point where his ego becomes inflated to that degree, his conceptions of God are guaranteed to be distorted.
ts00 quoting Molina, “What grievance will God have on Judgment Day against the wicked,…”
So, Molina devises a system where God runs through all the many worlds He could have created and the different decisions people would make in those different worlds are sufficient to establish the free will of those people. Then, God chooses one unique world to create in which all things that are to happen in that world are determined because God has already run through all the events of that world in His mind in eternity past. Calvinism merely describes the world created under Molina’s system. So, Molina set out to provide an alternative to Calvinism and ended up with Calvinism.
FOH writes:
A question for the Calvinist:
When you woke up this morning……
I LOVED THIS!!!! 😀
If I may be so bold – as to alter these just a tiny little bit.
1) Did you see any sin in anything you thought/desired/chose/did yesterday?
2) Did you say “I Thank you god you determined/caused me to do everything I did yesterday”?
3) Did you say “Help me god to not do the same things today”?
Did you perceive (1 – 3) as logically coherent *AS-IF* god is not the author of confusion?
Then what Darth Vader says is applicable to you: You’re destiny is complete. 😀
Dear Reformed friends:
Does your position teach that all that I did yesterday God had ordained from the beginning of time (immutably, unalterably)?
FOH writes, “Does your position teach that all that I did yesterday God had ordained from the beginning of time (immutably, unalterably)?”
If any pastor believes that God is omniscient, he must teach this.
… not if the pastor teaches the correct biblical definition of omniscience! It is like RC theologians in Luther’s day saying, “Pastors who teach justification must teach it as including works to receive any salvation grace.” They could say there are Scriptures that hint at their “orthodox” definition of justification, but they must then also say that Luther’s definition of justification and the clear Scriptures he pointed to proving it, which also overturned their fabricated definition, “…is just not the right definition”… and just because they say so. And, of course, everyone knows that their definition has been around “forever”. 😉
brianwagner writes, “… not if the pastor teaches the correct biblical definition of omniscience! ”
Yes, the argument is over the “correct” definition of omniscience. For some reason, only you are upfront about it – everyone else seems to go goofy on this point.
brianwagner writes, “They could say there are Scriptures that hint at their “orthodox” definition of justification,…”
By cherry picking Scriptures, a person can pretty much support anything he wants to believe. That is why the noteworthy Scriptures are those that a person ignores as he builds his case for his belief. We must take the totality of Scriptures into account in establishing sound doctrine – whether it is God’s omniscience, His sovereignty, man’s freedom to choose, etc…
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
rhutchin writes:
If any pastor believes that God is omniscient, he must teach this.
it ain’t what the Calvinist knows that gets-em in trouble
Its what he knows for sure that just ain’t so! 😛
Rhutchin:
If that pastor confuses terms he will. Omniscient is just another word for foreknowledge and doesn’t equal casuality. It certainly is not equivalent to meticulous determinism of our behavior.
Why do you want to call God a lying murderer?
God in Genesis 1 gives mankind Sovereignty over the Earth. God then gives man a choice to obey, or rebel. After man rebels, God talks to Cain and tells Him that He can resist sin, and rule over it. (with his sovereignty)
What you believe is that God determined Adam and eve would rebel, and they had no choice, and that even though God told Cain he could choose not to murder, he in fact had no choice as God determined he would murder Abel.
So in that one passage you destroy the integrity of God. You’ve made him a murderer (causing Cain to do it) and a liar.
Morris….
It is not a problem for them to call God a lying murderer since by “necessity” He must be since people lie and murder.
Three more really baffling things about this non-scriptural but “necessary” philosophy are:
1. Why He bothers to say the thousands of times “dont do that” “you can choose” “why did you do that?” when all along He ordained/ willed/ caused/ determined it? It simply makes Him a liar to make us think we could have done otherwise.
2. What is the point of even thinking we can do right since we only do what we are programmed to do? As we are told— everything I did yesterday was what He planned. “Amen! Amen! Amen! ” to the sins I committed for His glory yesterday!
I can hear that pastor’s message now: Did you sins dear yesterday brothers? Fret not…it was God’s will! ((Hey come to think of it, that comes out to a pretty sweet deal for Calvinists!))
3. Even our oppositions to this non-scriptural philosophy is God’s will. Why they try to convince us otherwise is a mystery since we are only doing what we have been programmed to do. I keep getting told that I am “refusing to see the truth” —-but that is so “man-centered” —as if I could do anything other than what I have been determined by God to do??
Finally….really…..what’s the point of anything? We only do what God has made (unforcingly forced us to do “freely” what our only option is to do).
All good points FOH:
It’s why I can listen to Paul Washer but not John Piper. One preaches like we have a choice, and the other doesn’t. I’ve often wondered if Washer is actually an arminian on most points. He preaches more like Leonard Ravenhill than John Piper, or John MacArthur.
If we took the calvinist worldview consistently, than Washer’s preaching is fruitless. It’s up to God whether we stop sinning or not.
Many of them are sounding more like Joseph Prince than John MacArthur. In a debate between Matt Slick and Jesse Morrell, Matt said something about sinning under the blood that sounded exactly like the easy deceivism of hyper grace.
The two are very similar. One just pretends they don’t have a choice in sinning, the other that grace gives them a license to sin.
Morris:
Let’s look at the Sunday message of this pastor:
Everything you did yesterday was what God has planned unchangeably, unalterably, immutably.
Everything you do today is what God has planned unchangeably, unalterably, immutably.
Everything you will do tomorrow will be what God has planned unchangeably, unalterably, immutably.
Amen Amen Amen!
Dismissed.
Morris writes:
What you believe is that God determined Adam and eve would rebel, and they had no choice, and that even though God told Cain he could choose not to murder, he in fact had no choice as God determined he would murder Abel.
So in that one passage you destroy the integrity of God. You’ve made him a murderer (causing Cain to do it) and a liar.
br.d
This is excellent!!! And right on the bulls-eye with Calvinism.
Calvinists attempt to get around this fact with beguiling double-talk.
Calvinists speak with forked-tongue
Morris Buel writes, “Omniscient is just another word for foreknowledge and doesn’t equal casuality. It certainly is not equivalent to meticulous determinism of our behavior.”
Omniscience is more than foreknwoledge, but for now, that works. Omniscience says that everything in the future is certain. This was true when God created the universe in Genesis 1. When God created the universe, He ordained all that was to happen. Nothing could happen that was contrary to His omniscience. Consequently, all was determined and meticulously so – the question now being how everything came to be meticulously determined and how God was involved in this.
Then, “Why do you want to call God a lying murderer?”
I don’t because God is not.
Then, “God in Genesis 1 gives mankind Sovereignty over the Earth.”
I don’t think that is exactly true. Did you make it up.
Then, “What you believe is that God determined Adam and eve would rebel, and they had no choice,…”
Certainly, at Genesis 1:1, God knew that Adam and Eve would rebel, and this was certain to happen. Even you seem to agree with that. Was it true that they had no choice or that their choice was certain form the beginning? I think they had a choice, and that God knew with certainty the choice they would make. Of course, God was actively involved in all that happened in the garden. It was God who granted Satan freedom to enter the garden; it was God who observed all that happened as Satan deceived Eve and as Eve offered the fruit to Adam. God had the power to intervene first to prevent Eve eating the fruit and then Adam. God had already decided in eternity past not to intervene as it was already His plan to send Christ to die on the cross. Even as God was intimately and meticulously involved in the garden, so He is involved in the lives of everyone who lives.
Then, “…and that even though God told Cain he could choose not to murder, he in fact had no choice as God determined he would murder Abel.”
Everyone has the choice as to sin or not even as Cain did. People do what they want.
Then, “So in that one passage you destroy the integrity of God. You’ve made him a murderer (causing Cain to do it) and a liar.”
You have not shown that to be the case. I see nothing in the Scriptures that supports your claim that God caused Cain to murder his brother.
Rhutchin –
Nothing in scripture says God made Cain murder Abel. That’s the inevitable consequence of believing God meticulously controls everything.
Take this which contradicts your attempt to walk back from the cliff of defiling God with compatibilism.
“Omniscience says that everything in the future is certain.”
This is not at all what it means. That’s *your* interpretation of it, and this statement is incompatible with compatibilism. It’s incompatible with any choice by man. If God determines and its certain what we will do, from his “sovereignty” then man has no free will, and God causes all of our actions, including Cain murdering Abel. That’s why under *your* systemology God is a liar and a murderer.
Throughout the Bible we see God giving mankind a choice. Choose to obey and not eat the tree of life. Choose to not murder your brother. Choose to obey and go out away from each other, be fruitful and multiply. They rebeled and built the tower.
Then we have the book of Deuteronomy which is filled with man’s free will choice. To choose to take of the tree of life through obedience or choose to take part in death, through rebellion.
Choose today which God you will serve. Sin leading to death, or obedience leading to righteousness.
These choices are *impossible* with your eisegesis of scripture. Man’s choices were determined before the foundation of the world.
Here’s what you’re missing. The outcome of our choices was determined before the foundation of the world. The future is mutable. How is one blotted out of the book of life as warned of in revelations?
“And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.” — Exo 32:33 NKJV
Likewise, Christ warns those who do not *abide* in Him will be cut off.
““If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” — Jhn 15:6 NKJV
Which is also a warning repeated by Paul.
“Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.” — Rom 11:22 NKJV
What do we see in these three passages? The future is mutable based on our behavior. God’s foreknowledge is based on our behavior, of punishments and rewards he put in place before the foundation of the world.
Morris:
I started commenting a while ago and wish someone had warned me! I wasted a lot of ink talking with both scripture and sense to rhutchin. It makes no difference. One minute he is free will and other determinist. Even today —in defense of determinism he said to TS00…”If the subordinate steps out of line, you [God] immediately step in to take corrective action.” (see it above).
Which of course makes no sense whatsoever in his God-controlled-that-person’s-ever-action philosophy. There is no “stepping out of line”—but they say it like God did not ordain it—while stating that He ordained all things. So….. ’round n ’round you will go.
Yes….most of us agree with you!! Scripture says over and over and over verses stating that man could have (and should have!) done differently (Cain is one of hundreds of examples).
but it matters not because they start with their answers…..and read the scriptures according. What point, then, those thousands of verses make to them—- no one knows.
FOH
The Calvinist says: (quoting rhutchin) If the subordinate steps out of line, you [God] immediately step in to take corrective action.”
Which of course makes no sense whatsoever in his God-controlls-that-person’s-every-action philosophy.
br.d
YES!
This is confirmed by ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book CALVINISM: A CLOSER LOOK
Gracely calls this THE CALVINIST ROCKING HORSE
-quote
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse. As a Calvinist rider, I would throw my weight forward toward my belief in the absolute sovereignty of God until I could go no further, whereupon I would recoil backwards toward my belief in human freedom. Thus I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions which, in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.
FOH writes, “he said to TS00…”If the subordinate steps out of line, you [God] immediately step in to take corrective action.” (see it above).
Which of course makes no sense whatsoever in his God-controlled-that-person’s-ever-action philosophy. ”
The example of this is the abuse of Joseph by his brothers. The brothers first plotted to kill Joseph. That was not God’s will, so He stepped in working through Reuben to accomplish His purpose. God’s will always prevails – where man’s will coincides with God’s will, then man’s will also prevails. All this is certain because of God’s omniscience and because God has ordained all that happens. If God has not ordained an event, then something or someone else has done so and God could not be sovereign.
Then, “Scripture says over and over and over verses stating that man could have (and should have!) done differently (Cain is one of hundreds of examples).”
To which all agree, Nonetheless, that which a person chooses to do was known to God according to His omniscience. If you want to say that God is not omniscient, that is fine as it defines a point of disagreement between you and Calvinists.
Rhutchin writes: “God’s will always prevails – where man’s will coincides with God’s will, then man’s will also prevails. All this is certain because of God’s omniscience [AND] because God has ordained all that happens. If God has not ordained an event, then something or someone else has done so and God could not be sovereign.
Then, “Scripture says over and over and over verses stating that man could have (and should have!) done differently (Cain is one of hundreds of examples).”
To which all agree, Nonetheless, that which a person chooses to do was known to God according to His omniscience. If you want to say that God is not omniscient, that is fine as it defines a point of disagreement between you and Calvinists.”
Another fine example of deceptive Calvinist semantics.
First is the misunderstanding of the word ‘prevail’, which implies a greater force or influence. When two wills exist, they cannot both ‘prevail’. Thus, if God and man, in common prevail, it demands the existence of another power over which they together triumph. Lastly, it is a mere presupposition of Determinism that requires someone to ‘ordain’ all events, either God or someone else, one of whom is thus ‘sovereign’. As Calvinists well know, but conveniently pretend not to, if God created man with free choice, their actions are not ordained, but free. This is the logically necessary difference between ‘free’ and ‘determined’, which Rhutchin is trying desperately to avoid.
In between these two errors, note the statement ‘All this is certain because of God’s omniscience [AND] because God has ordained all that happens.’ Like Graceley’s rocking horse rider, (I have, and have read, his book) Rhutchin on one hand asserts that omniscience = God has ordained all that happens. Yet here he deceptively separates the two, attempting to rock over to the other side for a moment, and suggest that there is a difference between omniscience and foreknowledge, just as non-Calvinists assert.
There can be no logical meaning to ‘All this is certain because of God’s omniscience AND because God has ordained all that happens’, since, under Rhutchin’s oft-stated definition, they are one and the same. This is a subterfuge, a feint, a deliberate attempt to escape the obvious fact that Calvinism’s Determinism cannot stand up under scripture’s countless refutations, so it borrows its opponents’ assertions and boldly declares ‘See, we do acknowledge what scripture undeniably teaches!’ Wink, wink.
When defending Calvinism, Rhutchin is forced to admit that his definition of omniscience is Determinism. When defending scripture,he loves to borrow his opponent’s definition – momentarily. In order to appear to agree with scripture, Rhutchin rocks over to free choice, then bounces back over to his genuine (Calvinistically required) definition. (That is what I found my former Calvinist pastor doing repeatedly.) Whether driven by cognitive dissonance or dishonesty, the result of Calvinism is the same – inconsistency.
Calvinism seeks to confuse and disarm the dissenter by appearing one moment to grant that omniscience and foreknowledge are two completely different concepts, ‘to which all agree’. The next moment, Calvinism will circle back around and insist that omniscience = Determinism, which, in fact, ‘all’ (non-Calvinists) and scripture disagree with.
See the sleight of hand? ‘Oh, Calvinism doesn’t deny man’s free choices’. It definitely does, but has to do something when countless passages of scripture prove it false; so the attempt is made to rock back and forth between definitions of words. What it is actually rocking between is false doctrine and scriptural truth.
First, Calvinism pretends to not deny the free will choices of man – such as Cain’s. This is absurd, as Calvinism denies all free choice, period. The two contradictory claims can only be made by redefining ‘free’ and ‘choice’ into meaningless concepts, whereby by ‘God’s decree’ = ‘man’s free choice’. Calvinism – and its loyal defender, Rhutchin – must by honest necessity assert that Cain had no ‘free choice’ whether or not to murder or not murder Able. There was never a second in which Cain truly had the possibility of not murdering Able. Under Calvinism, God ordained (thereby foreknew) that Cain would murder Able long before either were ever a twinkle in Adam’s eye; not foreknew Cain’s free choice, which is what non-Calvinists assert – but predetermined, ordained, irresistibly caused the murder to take place by his sovereign decree. This is honest, non-dissembling Calvinism.
This semantic dishonesty is what exposes Calvinism for what it is. Granted, many so-called Calvinists are merely confused by clever sophistry, brainwashed into not recognizing the blatant contradictions they have been trained to unquestionably hold. This is why so many former Calvinists have been called by God to speak up and point out the lack of logical consistency in Calvinism, so that his people may be delivered from its deceptive hand.
ts00 writes, “Thus, if God and man, in common prevail, it demands the existence of another power over which they together triumph.”
God’s will prevails in His sphere of influence; man’s will prevails in his sphere of influence. God rules over the man, so God’s will prevails over man. Within the boundaries set by God’s will, man’s will prevails over that which he rules, limited as it is.
Morris Buel writes, “God’s foreknowledge is based on our behavior, …”
So, I say that God is omniscient and you say that God is not – that God only has foreknowledge based on man’s behavior. That’s fine. Omniscience is a principle dividing line between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
Rhutchin,
“So, I say that God is omniscient and you say that God is not.”
No. You’re conflating the terms still, you’re still riding the rocking horse. Omniscience doesn’t require meticulously controlling our will and behavior.
Point to one verse after the fall that shows mankind lose His God given sovereignty.
You incorrectly point to passages like the redemption of Joseph.
Did God cause Joseph to be thrown in the well, or redeem Him through the evil free will choices of his brothers?
It really is that binary. You either believe God is the author of man’s sin or you accept that God can change the future and still know what’s going to happen.
Morris:
Brace yourself.
the one -verse answer that will given to you is Gen 50:20. with that verse….(that being one of the 40-50 key Calvinist verses) they will proclaim the discussion closed.
FOH
““But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.” — Gen 50:20 NKJV
I did explain that God saying this wasn’t God implicating he caused it to happen. That’s coming to scripture with rose colored glasses and being blind to everything that doesn’t fit your perception.
Which I’m sure you agree with.
Morris Buel writes, “I did explain that God saying this wasn’t God implicating he caused it to happen.”
Do you think the events of Joseph’s life happened by accident. Certainly, God gave Joseph the dreams that caused his brothers to hate him. Then, we have the testimony of Paul in Ephesians 1 that, “God works all things after the counsel of His will,” then “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” There is no reason to think that the events of Joseph’s life occurred by accident or chance but that God was orchestrating all those events to accomplish His purpose.
Morris Buel writes,
“I did explain that God saying this wasn’t God implicating he caused it to happen.”
rutchin responds
Do you think the events of Joseph’s life happened by accident.
br.d
This is a consistent move made by die-hard Compatibilists.
It is binary to them – either god originates and enforces every human thought/choice/desire/action making humans function as puppets, or things happen as an accidents.
Calvin’s god’s omniscience is not omnipotent enough to know the future free (libertarian) choices of his creatures.
Rhutchin also asserts that Calvin’s god existed in a state in which he had no omniscience at all (logically) prior to his decrees.
So rhutchin’s doctrine of omniscience denies the historic doctrine of “essential” omniscience.
Br.D
Certainly Calvin’s version of God is weak (as AW Tozer puts so well).
It sounds incredibly high road and “glorifying” to say that “God is in controlling everything or He is controlling nothing” (as is commonly stated in Calvinist circle —to a hardy Amen and lifted mug of brew!).
Really?
Is He that weak that He cannot allow anything to happen (that He has not caused) and still achieve His purposes?
Does that kind of total mind/ body/ action control sound like a loving “personal relationship”?
Do we see this kind of control elsewhere in God’s creation?
Does He say He does this in His word?
Hint: “no” works for all of the above.
Yes I totally agree.
And btw I want to thank you again for your wonderful posts!!
But the Calvinists of course are fulling indoctrinated.
That’s easy to see from the way they recite talking points like they’ve been hypnotized with them. 😀
Its so easy to see that Calvinism does reduce people to functioning as robots or puppets.
But of course that represents a negative advertisement for them so they deny it.
According to their double-think, the reason they deny it must be because Calvin’s god forces them to deny it by applying his “so called” force that forces without forcing.
Puppet theology. :-]
br.d writes, “…Calvin’s god existed in a state in which he had no omniscience at all (logically) prior to his decrees. ”
God is omniscient and knows Himself perfectly including His decrees. If there were no decree, it would not be part of His omniscience. Where there is a decree, God knows it and it is part of His omniscience. You can’t explain it any better, so why complain?
What does the Bible tell us of his brothers choice to do wickedness? Does it tell you in Genesis that God caused the brothers to do that? Or that God took what was meant for evil, and redeemed it for good?
You keep reading hard determinism into scripture, it’s defiling God’s holiness. A God that causes us to sin, is not holy.
Morris Buel asks, “What does the Bible tell us of his brothers choice to do wickedness? Does it tell you in Genesis that God caused the brothers to do that? ”
It says that the brothers choice to do wickedness arose from their depraved hearts.
Then, “Or that God took what was meant for evil, and redeemed it for good?”
The Scriptures affirm that also.
Morris Buel writes, “Omniscience doesn’t require meticulously controlling our will and behavior.”
Events are meticulously certain according to omniscience. They can be no other way. How do things happen but by the hand of God as, “God works all things after the counsel of His will,” Certainly God is in control of our will and behavior and those internal and external influences acting upon us. God is able, for any event, to affect those influences in any manner He wills even to do nothing so that those influences have they full effect on us and this also to accomplish His will.
Then, “Point to one verse after the fall that shows mankind lose His God given sovereignty.”
Mankind was never given sovereignty but is always subordinate to God and that which God wills. Man cannot lose that which he never had.
Then, “Did God cause Joseph to be thrown in the well, or redeem Him through the evil free will choices of his brothers?”
God was in complete control of the events of that day and did not prevent Joseph being thrown in the well showing us that it was His will for such to happen.
Then, “You either believe God is the author of man’s sin or you accept that God can change the future and still know what’s going to happen.”
By author, you certainly mean that God decrees the birth of each person with each person inheriting the corruption of Adam’s sin and by that corruption, man sins. God certainly acts in the course of time to bring about His purposes but by His infinite wisdom and perfect wisdom, the decrees He made in eternity past do not need to be changed in the course of time. Everything is unfolding according to God’s plan.
Morris Buel writes,
“Omniscience doesn’t require meticulously controlling our will and behavior.”
rhutchin responds
Events are meticulously certain according to omniscience.
br.d
This is based upon Calvin’s personal doctrine: Foreknowledge = Foreordation.
Which has been debunked:
rhutchin writes:
Omniscience is more than foreknwoledge, but for now, that works. Omniscience says that everything in the future is certain.
br.d
This is another good example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-talk.
Here the Calvinist feigns appealing to “omniscience” when he is really appealing to “foreknowledge”
That’s why he says “But for now that works”.
Then he switches away from foreknowledge while conditioning to appeal to it – masquerading it as omniscience with: “omniscience says that everything in the future is CERTAIN.
Here he deceptively uses the word “CERTAIN” as a euphemism “FIXED IN THE PAST”.
The word CERTAIN is used camouflage his doctrine of: THE FUTURE IS FIXED IN THE PAST.
Because he doesn’t want to actually reveal his doctrine asserts everything in your future is FIXED in the past.
He knows that Fatalism and Determinism are both predicated upon a FUTURE FIXED IN THE PAST.
The deceptive nature of Calvinism’s language is the red-flag the discerning Christian needs.
We call this Calvinism’s cloaked language.
Paul calls it “the cunning and craftiness of man”.
Thanks rhutchin for another good example. 😀
Oh it goes farther than that. If, as was said in the debate, God commands men to commit adultery, then a pastor should be asking his congregation, who would you like to have sexual relations with? Go for it, Dear ones, everything is God’s will, indulge your every sinful whim, to the glory of God. This isn’t just dangerous territory, it’s diabolical.
ww writes, “…everything is God’s will, indulge your every sinful whim, to the glory of God. This isn’t just dangerous territory, it’s diabolical.”
Still, God is present during any sin committed by any person and knows the thoughts and desires of a person leading to the sin. God is omnipotent and could intervene to stop the sin – it is God’s decision not to intervene that establishes the sin as His will. If you think that God is not involved in everything that happens, then help us out and explain how you think everything works. For Brian’s benefit, all was determined by God in eternity past, but we can speak of God acting in the course of time to bring about that which He ordained in eternity past.
So you agree that it’s a diabolical teaching? No where does scripture teach that if God does not stop something, it is his will that it happen.
WW:
That is one of the things that pried me out of the Calvinist camp.
Reading huge chunks of the Bible each day I saw (in many books, and types of biblical styles: literal and figurative, poetry, history, law) God (using a wide variety of His names) saying (in very plain, understandable ways) things like “I the Sovereign Lord, Mighty one of Israel, did not want you to do that…..” or “wanted you to do X” (that the people did not do).
You can see this every day in a systematic reading of the Word.
God makes it clear with His name and His Word that there are certain things that happen that He does not want to happen.
I, as pastor would never stand up in front of the flock and say, “Everything that you did yesterday was want God wanted you to do.”
Now I have posed that question on this site…..and get “Yes—that is what you should preach—Amen! Amen! Amen!”
When I express that I do not understand how I could preach that everyone’s disobedience was what God wanted, I am told that I “just don’t get it, Sir, since God’s message is foolishness to those who don’t believe.”
I know one thing for sure: You can call anything foolishness if you make it foolish enough.
ww writes, “No where does scripture teach that if God does not stop something, it is his will that it happen.”
Ephesians 1 tells us that “God works all things after the counsel of His will…” Whatever God works is His will. What would you exclude from “all things”?
Rhutchin writes: “Ephesians 1 tells us that “God works all things after the counsel of His will…” Whatever God works is His will. What would you exclude from “all things”?”
This is such an obvious misinterpretation I can hardly believe intelligent persons still dare to use it. God working all things after the counsel of his will does not even come close to suggesting that he actually determined, ordained and brought about those ‘things’ he works ‘after the counsel of his will’ or the ‘all things’ he works together for good described in Romans 8:28. Working ‘all things’ out to bring about his good plan in no wise discounts that many – one might say most – of those ‘things’ he has to work out arise from the ignorant and/or wicked choices of men. If they were all his doings, their would be no point in assuring and comforting believers that God would bring good out of evil. He could merely tell us to suck it up and take whatever he throws at us, because the ‘evil’ is from him just as much as the ‘good’. (Indeed, is not the very definition of evil that which is not from or is opposed to God?)
Our blessed hope is in the truth of God’s overall sovereignty, and of his promise to bring about the fulfillment of his described plan to once and for all eliminate sin, evil, misery and death. The very fact that God intends to ‘overcome’ such things would appear to indicate that they are not his will. If they are his will, and have come to pass by his determinations, he is working against himself to overcome his own evil actions. Nonsense.
TS00
Yes….I think we would all agree if the definitions given for “ordained” were not so presupposed from Greek philosophy.
Of course God “ordained all things!!!”
In the sense that He ordained/ created/ willed/ decreed a world where men will: be forced to “choose for yourselves this day who you will serve;” “come to their senses” (as did the prodigal son); be grafted into the chosen by faith as were Ruth and Rahab; resist the sin that is crouching at your door.
And of course….as part of the rocking horse….determinists will use words like choose, choice, allow.
I am particularly humored with their use of the phrase “God allows that” and the follow-up “when man has gone too far, God will intervene.”
What?
These ideas —-very prevalent from our reformed friends in comments here, and even sprinkled here and there on monergism.com, have absolutely no place in their philosophy. None. Zip. And yet….when the heat rises and they find themselves close to saying, “for His glory God ordains men to rape children,” (better yet “God ordained all the rapes that have every happened!”) they will slip in the “allow” word. Tsk tsk.
Be consistent with your position or join the rest of us in taking the Bible at face value!
FOH writes, “I am particularly humored with their use of the phrase “God allows that” ”
Having been in a Calvinist environment, you know that the meaning is that God grants people freedom to make choices without interference from Him as Adam/Eve in the garden and the numerous verses you have cited.
Then, “…and the follow-up “when man has gone too far, God will intervene.””
God has reserved the right to intervene in the affairs of men to accomplish His purposes (and for Brian’s sake, we have to remember that God had decreed all this in eternity past). We see this when God confronted Adam/Eve and Satan in the garden, the flood of Noah, the destruction of Sodom, etc.
Rhutchin writes: “God has reserved the right to intervene in the affairs of men to accomplish His purposes . . . ”
The Calvinist ever seeks to grant himself the right to hold two opposing viewpoints, so that he can appeal to whichever serves his immediate purpose. How can a God who ordains whatsoever comes to pass ‘reserve the right to intervene in the affairs of men’? Either:
A) God ordains whatsoever comes to pass
B) God allows men to act freely, but reserves the right to interfere in the affairs of men to accomplish his purposes (when necessary)
These are two, opposite approaches that contradict one another. The former assertion is consistent with Calvinism; the latter is representative of the opinions of Calvinisms’ opponents. In desperate dishonesty, the Calvinist must borrow his opponents’ viewpoint whenever scripture proves his own assertions false – which is very frequently! The non-discerning hear the familiar words of scripture, and either do not know, or do not make the connection that the assertion being calmly made is utterly contrary to the doctrines of Calvinism.
I’ve seen it so many times, heads a nodding in approval, never getting the disconnect between what the teacher is saying and what his theology demands, while steam slowly escapes from my boiling mind.
TS00,
You did it again! ((and I could mean by this that you wrote a great comment again))…
You gave in to answering that folly!
My alarm bells went off when I read ….”that God grants people freedom to make choices without interference from Him” which is a line right out of an Arminian script!! (I can see that rocking-horse crankin’ up!)
Sometimes I think our friend is just there to try to get our goat—-one minute saying that God does not interfere with free choices— and the next minutes…..well you know all the determinist silliness.
I have an idea! It’s really Leighton writing all this…..just to get traffic to his blog!!
I mean….really who else is gonna say the above statement and this one
“God has reserved the right to intervene in the affairs of men to accomplish His purposes…” (what? that is right out of our playbook!!)
and then turn around and say he is a Cavlinist-determinist-fatalist!!??
So…..just let it ride. We can all see it is nonsensical.
They cannot both be true and the Bible only backs one of them up.
Fix your eyes on Jesus. That is a better thing to do with your time….. and a free choice.
I had an Arminian friend who used to dialog with the Calvinists.
And whenever the Calvinist started going into their double-speak rocking horse routine – he would say: “Thank you for affirming Arminianism”
Its a curious thing to watch Calvinists assert [A] one minute – just to deny [A] the next.
Totally oblivious their brains have been shut off to discerning their contradictions.
Embracing a double-think belief system is what Calvinism is all about.
I still say God gave mankind Calvinists as form of entertainment! 😀
Who hasn’t gotten a chuckle out of watching a puppy chase its own tail.
br.d writes, “Its a curious thing to watch Calvinists assert [A] one minute – just to deny [A] the next.”
You left out what you see Calvinist assert then deny. Perhaps, there really wasn’t anything.
br.d writes, “Its a curious thing to watch Calvinists assert [A] one minute – just to deny [A] the next.”
rhutchin
You left out what you see Calvinist assert then deny. Perhaps, there really wasn’t anything.
br.d
Give yourself a few minutes – Calvin’s god has apparently predestined you to provide the examples.
My job is to provide the analysis.
Its a win-win situation! 😀
A) The puppeteer controls absolutely everything the puppet does by invisible strings
B) The puppeteer reserves the right to interfere in the affairs of the puppet
Yes – you have it right TruthSeeker – this is a consistent model of Calvinism’s beguiling double-talk. 😀
ts00 asks, “How can a God who ordains whatsoever comes to pass ‘reserve the right to intervene in the affairs of men’?”
Certainly, God ordained all that comes to pass and did so in eternity past. All that God has ordained is recorded in His omniscient knowledge, At Genesis 1, that which He had ordained, He then began to execute. In the execution of His plan, God gave people freedom to choose and this freedom was corrupted when Adam sinned so that after Adam people choose only according to their sinful desires and not according to God’s instructions. In His plan, God executes His will and this sometimes has Him intervening in the affairs of people (e.g., the flood of Noah, destruction of Sodom, impregnation of Mary). God’s plan has God intervening at various times but we do not know when this happens. From man’s perspective, God exercises His right to intervene anytime He wants; we understand that from God’s perspective, He has already decided when to intervene and is now executing those decisions.
This is consistent for rhutchin.
Calvin’s god decrees [X] and then intervenes in [X]
rhutchin will say “Calvin’s god decrees [X] and then intervenes in [Y] *AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t decree [Y]
rhutchin either recognizes he’s relying on Calvinism’s beguiling double-talk, or he’s unable to discern it.
I think to some degree he does recognize it but he’s unwilling to acknowledge that – for the obvious reasons.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god decrees [X] and then intervenes in [X]”
It should be, “God decrees [X] and then executes [X]”
In conversations concerning Calvin’s god decreeing what he intervenes in br.d writes, “Calvin’s god decrees [X] and then intervenes in [X]”
rhutchin provides the Calvinist answer
It should be, “God decrees [X] and then executes [X]”
br.d
Notice how this evades “intervenes” by deflecting to “executes”
rhutchin provides the Calvinist answer
It should be, “God decrees [X] and then executes [X]”
br.d
Notice how this evades “intervenes” by deflecting to “executes”
Revise to: “God decrees [X] and then intervenes in the affairs of men to execute [X]”
ts00 writes, “God working all things after the counsel of his will does not even come close to suggesting that he actually determined, ordained and brought about those ‘things’ he works ‘after the counsel of his will’ ”
OK. Why not?
Then, “…or the ‘all things’ he works together for good described in Romans 8:28. Working ‘all things’ out to bring about his good plan in no wise discounts that many – one might say most – of those ‘things’ he has to work out arise from the ignorant and/or wicked choices of men. If they were all his doings, their would be no point in assuring and comforting believers that God would bring good out of evil. He could merely tell us to suck it up and take whatever he throws at us, because the ‘evil’ is from him just as much as the ‘good’.
Why shouldn’t we view everything that happens to us as God’s providence for good or evil thereby assuring us that all things are working to accomplish God’s purpose?
Then, “(Indeed, is not the very definition of evil that which is not from or is opposed to God?)””
I don’t think so. The evil actions of Joseph’s brothers were the means to bring about God’s purpose for Joseph. The evil actions of the Jews and Romans were the means to bring about the death of Christ (the greatest evil ever) and that was God’s purpose.
Rhutchin writes: “The evil actions of Joseph’s brothers were the means to bring about God’s purpose for Joseph. The evil actions of the Jews and Romans were the means to bring about the death of Christ (the greatest evil ever) and that was God’s purpose.”
It is a great leap and bold assumption, to go from God’s bringing good from evil to asserting that God ordains the evil as a means to bring about his will. They are completely different propositions. One has God desiring, ordaining and orchestrating evil to bring about some good. The other has God working the deliberate, freely chosen evil of rebellious men – which he does not desire or approve of – into something good, and bringing about blessing and benefit from that which originated from sinful, rebellious motives. The former is ugly and unthinkable; the latter is amazing and only possible by a sovereign, omniscient God. One CAUSES evil, the other REDEEMS evil and turns it into good. There is a vast, enormous difference. If you do not see that, I pity you.
TS00,
You are right of course, but I am surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this.
With one magic wand swoop Piper says basically that since God “made” men do evil things (several men over a fair amount of time) to bring about the crucifixion ….ipso facto…..then all evil from all time is what God “needs” “plans” in order to get what He needs.
It is a small view of God, as AW Tozer points out, and of course rather infantile in its logic.
I have posted in several places that I am willing to concede that God intervened in a very micro-managed way to bring about the greatest event in history (the crucifixion and resurrection) but that does not follow that he is ordaining the kid that stole gum at the 7-11 or the 4th grader glancing at a neighbor’s test. No connection.
Why—oh why must we make God so small and —-well, paranoid, that He has to ordain/ decree immutably every dust particle —in order for Him to achieve His purposes. That’s not a great God. That’s a small, weak on.
TS00:
I forgot to add that in Piper’s scraping of random verses (and half verses) from here and there he includes Proverbs 16:33:
The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord. (ESV)
I kid you not! Despite the thousands of verses where we see men doing things God does not want….Piper pulls out a Proverb(!!) to establish a hard-fast doctrine. Amazing. These are educated men too!
Kind of like finding a needle in a haystack. Do they think we dont read the rest of the Bible?
I mean are we supposed to read along and identify with stories, historical events, drama….and see the pathos of Abraham leaving his family in faith ….and the pain and pathos of being willing to sacrifice his son….in faith….and then ….ooops…stumble on Proverbs 16:33 and say…. oh…wow I guess all of that human drama/ emotion/ pain/ choice/ thinking is really just —well uh pre-programmed cuz…look at the dice!!
We are expected to read all the rest of the Bible through the specific interpretation of 40 verses (Proverbs 16:33 being one of them).
These verses (with reformed interpretation) trump all others!
Forget the thousands of warnings: flee temptation, resist the devil….and supplications: draw near to God and He will draw near to you; seek the kingdom; fix your eyes on Christ; —-they mean nothing since well, the dice tell us that all has been determined.
What about the “be verses”?
Be …..
exceeding glad (MATTHEW 5:12)
reconciled to a brother (MATTHEW 5:24)
perfect (MATTHEW 5:48; 2 CORINTHIANS 13:11)
wise as serpents (MATTHEW 10:16)
harmless as doves (MATTHEW 10:16)
ready for Christ’s coming (MATTHEW 24:44; LUKE 12:40)
content with your wages (LUKE 3:14)
merciful (LUKE 6:36)
like faithful servants (LUKE 12:36)
thankful (COLOSSIANS 3:15)
at peace among yourselves (1 THESSALONIANS 5:13)
patient toward all people (1 THESSALONIANS 5:14; 2 TIMOTHY 2:24)
no partaker of sin (1 TIMOTHY 5:22)
sober and hope (1 PETER 1:13)
sober and pray (1 PETER 4:7)
sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, charity, and patience (aged men, TITUS 2:2)
sober, love husbands and children (young women, TITUS 2:4)
sober minded (men, TITUS 2:6)
ready to give an answer of the hope that is in you (1 PETER 3:15)
Nope…. no big deal….do what you feel like really….sin boldly in fact since —-well it is all fatalistically determined anyway. So whatever you did yesterday, sin, porn, adultery included was EXACTLY what God wanted anyway!!! Amen! Amen! Amen!
That fundamental doctrine-establishing verse —revealed to us by Piper—in Proverbs assures us that every decision you ever made or will make was already cast in stone by God before time.
And yet I recently saw a clip of Piper saying that some of his children did not agree with his theology, and that nothing provoked him more to prayer and fasting. What? What could ever motivate a Determinist to prayer or fasting? What is the point? Nothing he ever does will change God’s predetermined plan. Que sera sera. No amount of prayer or fasting will change anything. EVER. His kids are loved or damned. No use losing any sleep over it – or praying and fasting. Just praise the glories of a god who needlessly, deliberately chooses to damn helpless children before ever they were born, to do good or evil.
No, Piper, Sproul, nor any of these false teachers really live what they preach. If they followed their theology to its logical conclusion, they would kill themselves in despair. After all, why not? If you’re elect, nothing you do can hurt your standing in God’s eyes. Commit fornication a thousand times a day – Luther says it’s no problem, might even scare off the devil. Burn people on green wood – Calvin obviously didn’t fear any retribution for grisly murder of morally innocent men and women who simply dared to disagree with him.
It is, plain and simply, a false, demonic theology, with very little resemblance to the true gospel of which Paul, and all good men, need never be ashamed.
TS00:
I dont know about that video but I agree that they do not live what they theologize.
The Gospel Coalition (a YRR group) posted this article about Piper.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-john-pipers-seashells-swept-over-a-generation/
The theme is “the Seashell Sermon” that Piper gave in 2000 that launched his “dont waste your life” campaign.
The whole article is about human decisions. What we do matters. Don’t waste your life. Dont go off and retire at 58—get to work!!
Why?
Why?
Why?
Haven’t the dice been rolled and hasnt God made every hard-fast decision that will ever be?
Then why resist that early retirement and personal spending pleasure?
Because Piper knows (and teaches) what we all know….. your life matters. Your decisions matter. You can change outcomes. You can impact the future. It is not all a done deal. If it is all a done deal—why motivate people?
Some of the testimonies in the article: “that message changed my direction.” Oh really….you mean you could have gone one way or the other way? Yes of course!
But, alas, that is not what fatalistic-deterministic-reformed-heretic-burning-Calvinism teaches.
ts00 writes, “What could ever motivate a Determinist to prayer or fasting? What is the point? Nothing he ever does will change God’s predetermined plan.”
It is because God has not revealed all the details of His plan to us. However, God has given us specific promises that, if affected, are part of His plan. Thus, God tells us that we can ask for wisdom. That promise is certain – a person asking for wisdom receives wisdom and that outcome is part of God’s plan. Why would anyone neglect asking for wisdom?? The motivation for a Determinist to fast and pray is God’s promise to respond to those who fast and pray. If the lottery was $500 and you had inside knowledge of the winning numbers, would you buy a ticket with those numbers knowing that you were a certain winner? The promises of God offer more than money can buy, so why neglect those promises – the outcome is certain.
So predictable, how you all always run to the same couple of verses. What would I exclude from all things? Sin. Why? Because I would read the passage in context. And the context is the preceding ” in Christ”. I would also compare the verse to similar verses like Philippians 4:13. Does all things in Philippians 4:13 include evil things? And if all here in ephesians means everything, does it also mean everyone in Peter 3:18?
WW,
Of course we believe that God works all things according to the counsel of His will!!!
And from Scripture it appears that it was His will to create a world where men will “resist the devil,” “follow my example,” “choose for yourselves today,” etc (thousands more available upon request; See Genesis 1 through Rev 22)
I have said many times that for some people the thousands and thousands of verses describing how God has chosen to create are somehow held captive to presupposed interpretation of 40-50 verses. Sad but true.
Do not worry!!! No one actually lives this way!!! It is only a philosophy!
We all live as though we matter…as though we make choices that matter…as though we can please or grieve God.
No one lives this kind of fatalistic-deterministic life…. or we would not invest in our kids, make tough choices, or say we are “sorry” (how can you be sorry if the thing you did was God’s preordained will?).
Press on bro….fix your eyes on Jesus!
ww writes, “What would I exclude from all things? Sin. Why? Because I would read the passage in context. And the context is the preceding ” in Christ”.”
So, let’s look at that context:
9 God made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Christ
10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him
11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
We have two main points:
1. God is summing up all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth.
2. In Christ, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
In doing these, is it possible for God to ignore sin? I don’t see how. Maybe you do. God deals with sin directly in His elect through forgiveness and their sanctification. In Romans 8, we know that God works all things together for good for His elect and this also requires that God deal with sin. Even for the non-elect, God cannot let sin run rampant or we get a situation like that prior to the flood of Noah. So, I think God has to keep sin under control. I don’t see how God can ignore sin, but needs to deal with sin as He is working out His plan of salvation.
Then, “I would also compare the verse to similar verses like Philippians 4:13. Does all things in Philippians 4:13 include evil things? ”
In context, Philippians 4 has, “I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am…. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” The big difference is that Philippians deals with Paul while Ephesians 1 deals with God. So, Paul can deal with any circumstances he encounters because God strengthens him. In the same way, God can deal with any circumstances, including sin, because of His strength (omnipotence).
Then, “And if all here in ephesians means everything, does it also mean everyone in Peter 3:18?”
Here we read, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;”
The term, “all,” is defined as “the unjust.” Christ, the just, died for the sins of all, the unjust. So, it does mean everyone lumped together under the descriptor “unjust.” His purpose was to “bring us to God.” The “us” would be God’s elect.
As usual you have either totally miss my point or just deliberately dodged around it. Who said anything about God ignoring sin? The question was whether God causes it. If I work on a house and fix it to Perfection the way I want it, does that mean I caused it’s imperfections? Of course not, just the opposite. If God works everything for good for those who are in Christ, that does not mean he ordains their sin. And look at the way you’re wording this: God can deal with sin? He can deal with himself? What does that even mean in determinism, where God is not dealing with anything, he’s causing it all?
To be consistent you would have to say that part of what Paul can do through Christ is to sin. And that God is strengthening and causing him to do just that.
So we are back to my original question, does God command us to sin? And to be consistent with your philosophy, that command must be irresistible…
ww writes, “The question was whether God causes it.”
No. The question is whether Ephesians 1 is true when it says that God works all things according to the counsel of His will. Do we agree that Ephesians 1 is the truth?
Then, “If God works everything for good for those who are in Christ, that does not mean he ordains their sin.”
To ordain does not mean “cause.” It just means that God has the final say on all that happens as He has the power to change anything that happens if He does not want it to happen.
Then, “What does that even mean in determinism, where God is not dealing with anything, he’s causing it all?”
Determinism allows that God works through secondary causes. If God creates a stream flowing downhill, then that stream flows downhill. If, as it flows, it impacts the area through which it flows for good or for bad, then God has determined it. When we say that God causes all things, we mean that God’s control over all things is absolute and nothing happens unless He wants it to happen. It does not mean that God is the direct and immediate reason for something to happen. We might say that God causes Adam to eat the fruit not because He made Adam eat the fruit but because God made Adam and put him in a situation that would lead him (a secondary cause involving Satan) him to eat the fruit.
Then, “To be consistent you would have to say that part of what Paul can do through Christ is to sin.”
I think context precludes that conclusion.
Then, “does God command us to sin?”
Absolutely not.
WW… you have to remember to consistently use the past tense “decreed” when talking about determinism, or Calvinists find a rhetorical loop-hole if you say “decrees”.
Brian:
Always good to have you comment.
I it all rhetoric really.
By their definition the builder of the football stadium “ordained” the broken neck of a player on a bad tackle, or the manufacturer of a gun “ordained” the murder of a victim. I mean that could not have happened if he had not built it ready to fire, right?
But that is certainly not how the rest of us are defining ordained/ decreed/ willed.
Debates are always grounded upon definitions for terms.
He who can manipulate those definitions – rigs the game and thus gains an automatic advantage.
That’s why Dr. Flowers highlights how Calvinists speak the English language, but have their own private dictionary.
Having their own private dictionary is their strategy for manipulating definitions of terms – and thus rigging the game.
FOH writes, “By their definition the builder of the football stadium “ordained” the broken neck of a player on a bad tackle,…”
If the builder of the stadium had the ability to prevent the broken neck of a player on a bad tackle and chose not to do so, then the builder ordained that outcome. Correct???
Here we get into philosophy.
Indeed, if all possible ‘risks’ are to be avoided, no football stadiums, airplanes, cars or much of anything should be created, so that no injury, sin or evil happening may occur. Herein is perhaps an understanding that is necessary as to why God would choose to create a world in which his creatures have genuine free will. One in which they could, and did, utterly reject his precepts and will and wreak unthinkable havoc and destruction; as he knew they could and would.
Calvinism, unfortunately conflates ‘being in sovereign control’ of his creation with being meticulously, deterministically controlling, making the false assertion that God actually thought up, ordained and brought to pass this unthinkable havoc and destruction. In order to reveal his ‘good, loving, merciful justice’ he needed to create, cause and ‘punish’ evil. At all costs, even to God’s holy nature, Calvinists assert that God alone is in deterministic control of his creature’s every thought, word and deed.
Non-Calvinists recognize the contradiction in Calvinism’s claims to those of scripture, which asserts that in God there is no evil or unrighteousness, that he would never have even imagined, let alone ordained, such things as rape, torture or child sacrifice. They also recognize and point to the countless – thousands – of passages in which men are both offered choices by God and are said to have made choices against his will, and suffered the consequences. There is also the matter of simple justice, which forbids both causing and punishing the same action.
But back to the question of why – and this is mere positing what little I understand. Is it not true that risk is inherent to freedom and creativity? In my own personal background, I grew up with a very risk-averse father, who was emotionally bogged down by the fear of death. In his mind, it was absurd to take unnecessary risks, such as flying in airplanes, learning to ski or climbing mountains. This progressed to the point where he could barely leave his home. Most recognize that ‘normal’ risks must be accepted if one is going to experience many of the unique experiences life offers. The amount of risk a person can tolerate varies greatly, but in reality, we face or take countless risks with our life and safety nearly every moment of every day; even if, like my father, we attempt to hole up and hide. You might choke on your food, slip on the floor or get hit by a meteor coming through your roof.
From my own struggle with discovering a reasonably healthy approach to acceptable risk, I realized that many of the greatest joys in life contain a good deal of struggle, error and suffering – that is, risk. Take relationships. To avoid the risk of a failed marriage, one might correctly deduce the safest approach is to avoid relationships altogether. Yet this also precludes all possibility of reciprocal love, and the many joys that it produces.
This is a simplistic example of the perfect, superior reasoning that perhaps led to God choosing to create people with the ability to make choices. Without such, he knew that life would have little meaning, hope, adventure or joy. I would suggest that God foreknew the good outweighed the bad, particularly since he had a plan under which ‘the bad’ would be dealt with and overcome.
This ‘overcoming’ sin and evil is not a dualistic play, in which God deterministically controls ‘the good guys’ and ‘the bad guys’ like a little boy playing with toy soldiers. God did not create soulless toys who had no power of genuine free choice. He chose to overcome evil – which is only possible in a world created by a Good God if his creatures can resist his good will – by demonstrating love in all of its beauty and fullness, for love covers a multitude of sins. Yes, God’s choice to create genuinely free individuals demands that some men could, and would, choose rebellion, sin and death. Yet God also knew that some would freely recognize and submit to the genuine goodness and love he both demonstrated and offered, and choose life.
Sometimes, I admittedly pray, ‘Wow, God, is all of this evil really necessary? Why don’t you put an end to it now, rather than later?’ Yet he tells us why – because he is loving, merciful and patient, desiring that more have an opportunity to turn from wickedness and live.
I dare to hope that someday, with all threat of injury and death removed, I will be able to do many of the things my risk averse childhood prevented, like swim, ski and climb to the highest mountain tops! Even more, I look forward to the day when not only the world, but this person I call ‘me’ is free from all taint of sin and evil.
ts00 writes, “Non-Calvinists recognize the contradiction in Calvinism’s claims to those of scripture, which asserts that in God there is no evil or unrighteousness, that he would never have even imagined, let alone ordained, such things as rape, torture or child sacrifice.”
Yet, God is present during every rape, torture or child sacrifice watching every detail and knowing every thought of the rapist and his victim. The omnipotent God could easily step in and prevent it – He chooses not do to so. What are we to make of that??
Brian,
Another example of rhetoric.
We are no strangers to Reformed churches and my wife and I recently were in an RCA (Ref Ch America) Sunday Service.
Baby Baptism day. It wasn’t enough for him to sprinkle the infant. He announced…”Do you know why we do this? Because the Bible tells us to do it! And we do what the Bible tells us!”
1. Rhetoric. The Bible “tells” us to do it. Uh-huh.
2. Rhetoric. If you dont do it, you are not being faithful.
One man’s drop-dead, non-negotiable verse is …..well….. not so clear for another.
Waaaaay too much mileage is had from one partial-verse in Eph 1….
of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
That (and say, 10 other verses) is just not enough for us to use as a filter for the thousands of other clear verses throughout all they types of literature, books, genres in the Bible.
A person can do it that way if they like!! But that is preference not dogma.
FOH writes, “That (and say, 10 other verses) is just not enough for us to use as a filter for the thousands of other clear verses throughout all they types of literature, books, genres in the Bible.”
Yet, those 10 verses (and others) speak truths that cannot be negated by other verses, no matter how many. The truth of one verse must be harmonized with the truth of all other verses if we are to understand what God is telling us.
Great point!
Calvinists are like semantic money-changers – experts at shifting semantic weights on the scales of langauge.
Calvinism is all about masquerading its logical consequences behind duplicitous word tricks.
Once one becomes aware of their library of tricks – one learns not to give them any room for being deceptive.
Another good catch Brian. :-]
brianwagner writes, “you have to remember to consistently use the past tense “decreed” when talking about determinism, or Calvinists find a rhetorical loop-hole if you say “decrees”.”
Decreed in eternity past and executed in the course of time. Even you understand that, but others don’t necessarily.
.
Thanks Roger for affirming that for Calvinism it is “decreed in eternity past” and not “decrees”… For decrees “in the course of time” would be contradictory, since once immutably decreed in eternity past it doesn’t get decreed all over again after eternity past. And Calvinists would certainly not want to teach something that’s contradictory! 😉
“And Calvinists would certainly not want to teach something that’s contradictory! 😉”
Stop, you’re killing me. 🙂
Calvinist to Christian:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said when I avoided saying what I was really saying.
But I see through Holy Spirit inspiration that your inability to understand, is because Calvin’s god has closed the eyes of your understanding to not understand what Calvin’s god wants you to understand. And therefore you will be judged in eternal fires and torments for your inability to understand *AS-IF* Calvin’s god really wanted you to understand it.
It all makes perfect sense to the Calvinist. 😀
A modified version of “the crooked path”
Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed the ancient calf’s crooked path about
And o’er his crooked journey spent
The traffic of a theological tradition went.
A Hundred thousand men were led,
By one crooked calf near three centuries dead.
They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;
And still today that crooked path they follow,
For Calvin’s camel they did fully swallow.
brianwagner writes, “For decrees “in the course of time” would be contradictory,”
We should use Calvin’s language here. What God has decreed in eternity past, He executes in the course of time. God has made all His decisions; it remains only to execute those decisions.
Rhutchin writes: “To ordain does not mean “cause.” It just means that God has the final say on all that happens as He has the power to change anything that happens if He does not want it to happen.”
This is how Calvinists make nonsense of meaning. If one can redefine words at will, and make the very same statement mean one thing at one moment, and the exact opposite the next, then honest communication is impossible. The listener can never know what the Calvinist means, as he feels free to rock back and forth between the two contrary meanings at will.
If ‘to ordain does not mean “cause”‘ then Calvinism would be in agreement with non-Calvinists, who assert the sovereignty, omniscience and omnipotence of God, but disallow the meticulous, deterministic causation that genuine, historical Calvinism demands in order to uphold its TULIP assertions.
Calvinists like Rhutchin are either ignorant of historic Calvinism, in denial of historic Calvinism or seeking to mislead others who are ignorant of historic Calvinism into thinking it is no different than non-Calvinist biblicism. For the life of me, apart from dishonesty, I cannot imagine why any so-called Calvinists would cling to Calvinism’s historical assertions while redefining them into meaning the same thing as their opponents have long asserted. Unless it is the desire to preserve their belief in ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ which, admittedly, loses all logical consistency when it merely becomes Eternal Security minus Election in the hands of Baptists.
My ‘security’ rests in my complete faith in the goodness of God. This means that, in spite of the lack of a surefire ‘get out of hell free’ card, I firmly believe that God’s costly offer of grace is genuine, and is not based on perfect performance but on my genuine trust in God. I’ve been through the ‘sinless perfection’ school, dabbled in the ‘Eternal Security’ school, and investigated the TULIP school. All seem to me to have in common a basic misunderstanding of God, sin and salvation, focusing on actions versus what God judges, which is the heart. The best explanation I have seen comes from a (supposedly) Reformed theologian who definitely rejected much of what Calvin taught:
“Temptation begins with distrust of God’s goodness . . . Where there is perfect trust in God’s fatherly goodness, there can be no temptation. Unbelief [in the goodness of God] is the beginning of sin. Unbelief, in fact, is the very root and basis of sin. . . . When man ceases to trust God completely, the next step is that he wants to be God himself. He wants to be able to rule his own life, to foresee the future, to determine what is good and what is evil, to judge others, to be the centre of the world. That is sin, full-grown . . . If we are to understand what salvation is, it is very important for us to understand this point: that the essence of sin is unbelief, and the opposite of sin is faith. We often think that the opposite of sin is righteousness, but according to the teaching of the bible, the true opposite of sin is faith. If we understand this, we shall be able to understand the salvation which has been accomplished for us in Christ. . . .”
Lesslie Newbiggin, Sin and Salvation, 1956
WW,
Thanks!
They almost all reject most of what Calvin taught: torture, infant baptism, amillenialism, no-real-Israel, fixed-determinism, etc.
And yet they proudly use his name and make universities and seminaries with his name and statue. Bummer.
To most people “deterministically, immutably ordained/ willed/ decreed” would be clear, but as you said, redefining it—-and using “allowed” “intervened” “did-not-cause” are all ways of having one’s cake and eating it too. Not logical. Not biblical. Not necessary.
Let’s just keep doing what you did….tell about how simple faith in Christ is personal and “rewarded” according to the Scriptures.
Rhutchin writes: “To ordain does not mean “cause.” It just means that God has the final say on all that happens as He has the power to change anything that happens if He does not want it to happen.”
In another post rhutchin writes “ordain and decree are synonymous”
Calvinists use a lot of “distancing language” as part of the double-speak.
In this case rhutchin uses the phrase “final say”
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god weren’t controlling everything through the puppet strings of immutable decrees.
br.d writes, “In another post rhutchin writes “ordain and decree are synonymous””
Neither ordain nor decree means cause – “cause” referring to the immediate determining factors(s). God can determine all events without being the immediate determining factor leading to the event.
rhutchin writes:
God CAN determine all events without being the IMMEDIATE determining factor leading to the event.
br.d
This is a good example of how much Calvinism is reliant upon subtle word games.
1) Notice here the word “CAN” is used to present the equivocal notion that it CAN be any other way.
The Westminster confession doesn’t assert Calvin’s god CAN determine all events – it asserts Calvinist god DOES determine all events.
But rhutchin cunningly crafts his statements as equivocal as possible.
2) Here the term “immediate” “determining factor” are carefully added as Caveat emptor.
One of the things that makes Calvinist language so deceptive is its strategical use of terms which can be used equivocally.
Here the term “determining” factor is used equivocally.
In the English dictionary, “determine” has two meanings.
1) to REASON about something
2) to FIX or SETTLE something
In Calvinism, THE FUTURE IS FIXED (by Calvin’s god) IN THE PAST
Therefore every human thought/choice/desire/action are SETTLED in the past and your future is FIXED.
In the sense of SETTLING a future event Calvin’s god is the *SOLE* DETERMINING factor leading up to the event.
However, in the sense of REASONING, a human can be said to “determine” something.
The Calvinist takes advantage of the equivocation of the two meanings.
And by the deceptive ruse attempts to give the appearance that the human is the culpable “determiner” of an evil event.
What the Calvinist hides is that Calvin’s god is the DETERMINER what the human “determines”.
And as William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Van Inwagen would say.
If determinism is true then all thoughts/choices/desires/actions are not “UP TO US” – they are up to Calvin’s god .
Thus Calvinism Calvin’s god is the SOLE DETERMINER all events.
In Calvinism:
1) Calvin’s god is the SOURCE of all thoughts/choices/desires/actions.
2) Calvin’s god ENFORCES all of thoughts/choices/desires/actions making them come to pass as inevitable/unavoidable.
3) Calvin’s god is the ONLY NECESSARY determiner of all thoughts/choices/desires/actions.
4) Humans simply function as instruments whom Calvin’s god moves to bring about his willed events.
Thanks rhutchin for the example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-speak. 😀
br.d writes, “The Westminster confession doesn’t assert Calvin’s god CAN determine all events – it asserts Calvinist god DOES determine all events.”
OK. Let’s revise it to read, “it asserts Calvinist god DOES determine all events without being the IMMEDIATE determining factor leading to the events.”
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-cause-sin
Seems many of your Calvinist leaders disagree with you. I fail to see any difference between God commanding people to commit sin and God commanding satan to cause people to commit sin. Secondary causes go like this: ” I didn’t commit the crime, officer! I only pulled the trigger, the gun was the actual cause of death!”
No one going to hell is going to find any comfort from being told that God didn’t cause their refusal of him, he only makes it impossible for them to accept his offer of salvation. I don’t know how anyone holds to compatibilism for long. Trying to hold two opposites as both true is very tiring and ultimately impossible to maintain.
WW
No one really holds to compatibalism for long.
After theologizing about it… they all return to their daily lives of feeling, knowing that what they do matter. Our decisions matter. Our lives matter. We are created in the image of God.
This not a “man-centered Gospel”. The Scriptures say it on every page.
God says many times “I will do that for David’s sake…” Does this make God weak? No. Personal.
Why would the God described by determinism EVER say “I will do this for X’s sake”?
Why would He ever say He rewards those who seek Him?
Why would He ever say “I did not want you to do that…but you did”?
ww writes, “I fail to see any difference between God commanding people to commit sin and God commanding satan to cause people to commit sin.”
Are you using “command” in the sense of “ordering one to sin” or in the sense of “decreeing that one be free to sin.”
Then, “Secondary causes go like this: ” I didn’t commit the crime, officer! I only pulled the trigger, the gun was the actual cause of death!””
This should be, “Secondary causes go like this: ” I didn’t commit the crime, officer! I saw the person who did and could have stopped him but choose not to do so.”
Then, “No one going to hell is going to find any comfort…”
I agree.
Lol, the duplicity has no limit. Some how determining every thought and every action of every life has become simply being passive and allowing certain actions, when it’s convenient for your argument. Perhaps you could consider a career in politics.
ww writes, “the duplicity has no limit.”
So, you don’t know what you trying to convey in using the term, “command.” OK.
Command: an authoritative order.
“it’s unlikely they’ll obey your commands”
synonyms: order, instruction, directive, direction, commandment, injunction, decree, edict, demand, stipulation, requirement.
ww writes, “Command: an authoritative order.
“it’s unlikely they’ll obey your commands””
I had asked, “Are you using “command” in the sense of “ordering one to sin” or in the sense of “decreeing that one be free to sin.”” As both “order” and “decree” are synonyms of command, I guess the issue depends on any distinction between “order” and “decree.”
You said, “I fail to see any difference between God commanding people to commit sin and God commanding satan to cause people to commit sin.”
I don’t see God directly commanding/ordering people to son; I do see God indirectly commanding/decreeing that people be free to sin. As God is omnipotent and can prevent any person from sinning, then God’s decree not to prevent a person from sinning is not really different than God commanding/ordering a person to sin. It is as if God says to the person, “I will not stop you from sinning; therefore I am telling you to go out and fulfill your desire to sin.”
Seriously? Because the original question was inspired by a Calvinist who shouted that God commands men to commit adultery. Funny, when I read my Bible, I find that God commands men not to commit adultery. Then you claim that God decrees in eternity past every sin that men commit. Now you flip flop into Arminian territory and claim he only decrees men should have free will. Yes there is a difference between allowing freedom and commanding sin. Good grief, to say there is no difference is absurd, any one who reads scripture can understand the difference. A five year old can understand the difference between commanding him to do his chores and commanding him to disobey.
ww writes, “Because the original question was inspired by a Calvinist who shouted that God commands men to commit adultery. Funny, when I read my Bible, I find that God commands men not to commit adultery. ”
God always commands obedience from people. God also commands that people be free to disobey His commands. Finally, we must conclude that it is by God’s decree or command that the adultery be done because God, as sovereign was compelled to decide whether to exercise His omnipotent power to prevent the adultery and chose not to do so. Was not God in the bedroom as David took Bathsheba to bed, having been with David all day long and knowing the evil David contemplated in his heart? Was it not God’s decision whether to stop David from such sin and God chose not to stop David? Why are you confused on this issue?
Then, “Then you claim that God decrees in eternity past every sin that men commit.”
If not decreed, certainly you agree that God knew all this is eternity past. Don’t you?
Then, “Now you flip flop into Arminian territory and claim he only decrees men should have free will. Yes there is a difference between allowing freedom and commanding sin.’
What is that difference given that God is omnipotent and can affect any outcome He wants?
Then, “Good grief, to say there is no difference is absurd, any one who reads scripture can understand the difference. A five year old can understand the difference between commanding him to do his chores and commanding him to disobey. ”
Sure, if that was all that there was to the story. Even a five-year-old can understand that, in everything, God’s will is done simply because God is omnipotent.
“God always commands obedience from people. God also commands that people be free to disobey His commands. Finally, we must conclude that it is by God’s decree or command that the adultery be done because God, as sovereign….”
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
You say sin is God’s command or decree. God says it’s our doing, not his. I’m going with God on this one. I suspect he knows himself better than you do. And unlike Calvinists, he is not the author of confusion.
Rhutchin writes: “Then, “Secondary causes go like this: ” I didn’t commit the crime, officer! I only pulled the trigger, the gun was the actual cause of death!””
This should be, “Secondary causes go like this: ” I didn’t commit the crime, officer! I saw the person who did and could have stopped him but choose not to do so.””
This is blatantly deceptive. The second alternative makes God a mere witness, or at most, willing accomplice to the crime. Neither Calvin or the Westminster Confession assert that God is a mere observer or accomplice to the acts of men, but the ordaining, determining ’cause’ of whatsoever comes to pass. He plotted, ordained and makes sure every single event in history comes to pass – he and he alone, determined it all exactly as it must happen. It is blatantly dishonest to try and hide the truth that Calvinism asserts that God ordains, causes, brings into existence ‘whatsoever comes to pass’. It does not matter what means he uses, be it puppets, angels or rocks – it is God’s doing. And any non-brainwashed individual can see the evil, injustice and cowardice of Calvinism’s God as he punishes men for doing what he himself ordained and caused them to desire and do. Just stop being so dishonest. At least Calvin openly admitted the unrighteousness of his God – but wrongly insisted that since God was God he gets to call all the shots and man must timidly ignore his brutal ugliness. WRONG.
God is wholly good, loving, just, kind, gracious and merciful. Any accusations of God conspiring to bring about evil, then unjustly punishing the patsies he arranged to carry out the crimes are utterly false. Of course Calvinists do not want to own up to this. The question is, why don’t they denounce their ‘system’ for the evil horror that it is, as so many others have? Countless testimonies acknowledge that person after person was deceived, brainwashed, mind-controlled into seeing the scripture through Calvinist lenses, then graciously freed from this demonic error to see the genuine goodness, justice and mercy of God.
Truthseeker catches rhutchin once again.
Hitting the bulls-eye “This is blatantly deceptive.”
That’s how Calvinist language trickery works!
Good catch Truthseeker!!
TS00,
I am continually baffled at the idea that men will formulate their doctrines and have endless discussions without even taking into consideration the greatest teacher, example, personage in history.
When we study Christ, do we see a God who forces or weeps?
When we study Christ, do we see a God who calls and pleads (O Jerusalem, Jerusalem) or excludes?
When we study Christ, do we see a God who says “seek first the kingdom” or one who says “even if you knock, it wont be opened”?
When we study Christ, do we see a God who says, “come unto me all you who labor and are weary and I will give you rest,” or one who says “I only chose a very few weary”?
When we study Christ, do we see a God who is doing spiritual battle against evil, or is ordaining it?
When we study Christ, do we see a God who shows love and compassion even to those who reject Him, or one who rejects most of humanity?
FOH, I honestly cannot tell you how my heart aches at your words. I feel as if I have narrowly escaped from this dark, demonic place, and I long for the ‘good ol’ religion’ of my youth. In those days it never occurred to me to question whether or not God was good, faithful, just and merciful. I found him so, on page after page of scripture, which shaped my entire youth and life. I wouldn’t say that I was exposed to impressive teaching as a child, but in a way, that was to my advantage. I ended up reading the bible and finding out about God on my own, rather than from the biased perceptions of men. My heart aches for those who are yet entangled with Reformed Theology with all of its cruel, ugly perceptions of God – including many of the dearest people to me on earth.
I take solace in the idea that none of them live as though they believe it.
The neither “sin boldly” (since they basically would have license to)…
nor do they live like they cannot decide anything. They matter and they know they do….
In fact….fixing your eyes on Jesus is the solution to all this silliness. You will neither sin boldly nor feel meaningless if you do!
FOH writes, “fixing your eyes on Jesus is the solution to all this silliness.”
An option available only to those whom God saves – i.e., believers.
FOh writes, “When we study Christ, do we see a God who forces or weeps?’
It is Christ who says, “No one can come to me…” (John 6)
Then, “When we study Christ, do we see a God who shows love and compassion even to those who reject Him, or one who rejects most of humanity?”
“I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,…I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing,…” (John 6)
ts00 writes, “This is blatantly deceptive. The second alternative makes God a mere witness, or at most, willing accomplice to the crime. ”
Of course not. God is more than a witness – He is executing His plan. That plan provides for people to do as they desire so long as that which they desire accords with God’s plan. We see this in Isaiah 10. It was the desire of the Assyrians to invade and enslave Israel. They could not because God would not let them. That desire remained so when God stopped protecting Israel for the purpose of judging Israel, the Assyrians found that they were free to do as they desired. The Assyrains were God’s instrument for punishing Israel – as He had warned them time and again through His prophets that He would do. If that is what you mean by “accomplice,” then fine. If the Assyrians are examples of what you mean by “puppets,” then fine again.
Then, “Calvin openly… – but wrongly insisted that since God was God he gets to call all the shots and man must timidly ignore his brutal ugliness.”
Yet God is sovereign; God is in control; God does call the shots.
Then, “God is wholly good, loving, just, kind, gracious and merciful. Any accusations of God conspiring to bring about evil, then unjustly punishing the patsies he arranged to carry out the crimes are utterly false.”
OK. So explain how Isaiah 10 fits into this philosophy. “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy, And to cut off many nations….So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”
Rhutchin writes: “God is more than a witness – He is executing His plan. That plan provides for people to do as they desire so long as that which they desire accords with God’s plan.”
Sure, I get it that kind of ‘freedom’. Man can do whatever he ‘wants’ as long as he ‘wants’ what God ‘wants’. I think I’ve seen that somewhere before:
We call this rhutchin’s dancing boxer routine. 😀
Look there’s a squirrel up there!!
Well one thing is for sure! It should shock every good student of God’s Word when a human being (Calvin) says that God is the author of evil deeds! It doesn’t matter what our philosophical conclusions are regarding God’s ability to know all things. These conclusions should never carry us to a destination where God has become the “author” of evil! If we arrive there, we must re-think our philosophical ruminations! I am really shocked every time I read that quote by Calvin . . . he really went off the deep end . . . !!
I appreciated this post Deborah thanks!
Of course the Calvinists have 1001 deceptive arguments to twist their way around that pole.
For me, their deceptive language is the biggest tell-tale sign of all!!
Blessings :-]
deborah Hansel writes, “Well one thing is for sure! It should shock every good student of God’s Word when a human being (Calvin) says that God is the author of evil deeds!”
Can you define what you mean by “author”?
Hi Deborah,
I just wanted to warn you – in case rhutchin tries to draw you into dialog – beware – he postures as being open minded – and then works to draw people around in circles looking for an opportunity to get in a jab.
Just to let you know in advance.
br.d
br.d writes,
“…Calvin’s god existed in a state in which he had no omniscience at all (logically) prior to his decrees. Rhutchin also asserts that Calvin’s god existed in a state in which he had no omniscience at all (logically) prior to his decrees.
So rhutchin’s doctrine of omniscience denies the historic doctrine of “essential” omniscience.
rhutchin responds:
God is omniscient and knows Himself perfectly including His decrees. If there were no decree, it would not be part of His omniscience. Where there is a decree, God knows it and it is part of His omniscience. You can’t explain it any better, so why complain?
.
br.d
Silly bird – No complaint just rational logic.
Your private interpretation of omniscience asserts that Calvin’s god existed in a state in which he had *NO* omniscience (prior to his decrees) which denies the Christian doctrine of “ESSENTIAL” omniscience. Therefore your private interpretation of omniscience is false.
rutchin asserts:
“…Calvin’s god existed in a state in which he had no omniscience at all (logically) prior to his decrees. which asserts that Calvin’s god existed in a state where he had *NO* omniscience (logically) prior to his decrees.
So rhutchin’s private doctrine of omniscience denies the historic doctrine of “essential” omniscience.
rhutchin responds:
God is omniscient and knows Himself perfectly including His decrees. If there were no decree, it would not be part of His omniscience. Where there is a decree, God knows it and it is part of His omniscience. You can’t explain it any better, so why complain?
.
br.d
Silly bird – No complaint just rational logic.
Your private interpretation of omniscience asserts that Calvin’s god existed in a state in which he had *NO* omniscience (prior to his decrees) which denies the Christian doctrine of “ESSENTIAL” omniscience. Therefore your private interpretation of omniscience is false.
Thanks, br.d, I already know that about R Hutchin, and I have no intention of giving him the time of day. Thanks though! I appreciate your warning!
HOW OUR HUMAN BIASES SABOTAGE OUR ABILITY TO DISCERN TRUTH
In the book “The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking” by Edward B. Burger and Michael Starbird, there is an interesting story about the history in the study of string theory. A group of the world’s leading physicists in the fields of Particle Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and Relativistic Quantum Field Theory gathered together at MIT, to see if it were possible to settle the viability of what was then – hypothetical conceptions of string theory.
The team was made up of two groups. One group of physicists who believed string theory was impossible, and another group of who believed string theory might be possible. The project chose two opposing groups of physicists with the hopes that doing so would minimize human biases which would hinder the research.
However, after about 6 months of daily sessions, it became clear to the project had reached a stalemate. During their sessions, every time one of the positively-minded physicists advanced an argument concerning an aspect of string theory that may be viable, one of the negatively-minded physicists would argue against it. Similarly, every time one of the negatively-minded physicist advanced an argument concerning some aspect of string theory leading to its impossibility, one of the positively-minded physicist would argue against that.
The arguments started out gentlemanly enough, but soon degraded into highly (and sometimes violent) emotional personal accusations and mudslinging. The project was doomed unless they could find a way to overcome the in-fighting. So project leaders developed an inventive solution. They dedicated two separate laboratories in the research.
Laboratory #1 had a large sign in the front of the room that said: “STRING THEORY IS TRUE”. And laboratory #2 had a large sign in the front of the room that said: “STRING THEORY IS FALSE”. The physicists divided their time up into blocks of two weeks. For the first 2 weeks, they would work in laboratory #1, under the house rule that if anyone did not have something positive to add to the conversation about how string theory could be true, they were not allowed to speak. The next two weeks were spent in Laboratory #2 with the alternative rule regarding being allowed to speak. Well it was one thing for each physicist to have his opinion – but not being allowed to speak was personal torture!
Soon they were submitting to the rules and the research started making progress. In the end, they did resolve there were certain aspects of string theory that did indeed explain mysteries of physicists they hadn’t foreseen it being able to do, when they started.
Let me suggest that debates over Compatibilist vs. Libertarian Free will are also subject to the same human limitations. It has been my observation from studying the leading materials on this subject, the clear majority of arguments asserted by one party or the other are consistently based upon unflinching presupposition. When one analyzes arguments put forward by the Compatibilist, one can see the argument is grounded upon determinism as an intractable presupposition. It becomes obvious the arguer cannot see the forest beyond the trees. And the reverse can also be true.
We might learn from the strategy of our scientific friends, and discover as they did, how our allegiance to dogmatic presupposition so easily sabotage our ability to discern truth – heretofore unforeseen to us.
Above I have posted some of the hundreds (thousands!) of examples of where Scripture tells us something about God, or something we can do, or something we should do….or something a biblical figure could have / or should have done.
Yet no could-haves or should-haves can exist….if I am to preach on Sunday that “everything you did yesterday was exactly what God ordained, Amen! Amen! Amen!”
In these comments we get no practical ways of understand how Calvinism-determinism-Reformed can be true and all those 1000s and 1000s of verses can be true (or in any way make sense).
We get no practical answers, only (1) occasional jabs (“you must be a universalist” “you are a heretic” “you have no better answers”), (2) some non-sense that “we all agree with that” (which is part of that rocking-horse of agreeing one minute and saying the opposite the next) (3) or the all-fixing, magic-wand “If God is omniscient —by our definition— then He ‘necessarily’ (gotta have that word!) ordained all things and you are in error Sir!”
Still….we are left with the thousands of verses that tell us to seek, flee, walk-in, resist, choose for ourselves. Still we are left wondering—- how any of that makes sense in a determinist (God ordained all things to be the way they are before time) way.
No answers. Only jabbing, rocking, or wand-waving.
Please tell us how these thousands of verses fit into this philosophy.
The below, in its entirety, is taken from Vincent Cheung’s website. It is a Q&A session of sorts. It is entitled “WCF, Secondary Causes, Etc”…….
Question: Why do you think the Westminster Divines stated that God ordained whatsoever comes to pass and then also stated that God is not thereby the author of sin?
Answer: It seems that, like most theologians, they assumed that to cause evil is to commit evil; therefore, they had to distance God from evil. However, the assumption that to metaphysically cause evil is to morally commit evil is false, and rarely even mentioned or defended. It is taken for granted, but these are two separate issues. One deals with how something can happen at all, and the other deals with what moral laws God has declared to define what is good and what is evil. If he has not declared that it is evil for himself to metaphysically cause evil, then how dare men say that it is evil for him to do so?
To say that God is not the author of sin necessarily means that his sovereignty cannot be direct and exhaustive. That God is totally sovereign is something that the Bible clearly teaches. On the other hand, that God is not the author of sin is something that men wish to maintain against the Bible. Therefore, they affirm both, and most theologians attempt to work around it with permissive decrees (but the concept makes no sense), secondary causes (but does God directly cause and control these “secondary” causes or not?), and compatibilism (but this is irrelevant, since if God controls all things, then the fact that men make choices and what choices they make are also controlled by God, so that this means only that God is compatible with himself; thus the idea is a red herring that does not address the question).
When you refuse to accept nonsense and press the issue, they throw up their hands and call it a mystery, and call you a heretic if you insist that the biblical doctrine is clear. But if this is permitted, then anyone can hold any position on any issue, and just call it a mystery.
Question:…the Westminster Confession on secondary causes and the author of sin: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”
Answer: I believe that if a person is a Christian and somewhat intelligent, then if we were to repeat, “If God is not the direct metaphysical cause of something, then something else is,” to his face over and over again, eventually he would realize what this really means and would become just as alarmed and repulsed at the notion as we are. But perhaps both faith and intelligence are rare, and the combination even less likely.
As for secondary causation, I have addressed this a number of times. If all else fails, I can say that I did not write the books, but my computer did. The fact that I was typing on it when the books appeared does not nullify the authorship of the computer or its moral responsibility, but only establishes it. If the reply is that the computer is not an intelligent mind but a dead object, I would insist that Dual Core is superior to a lump of clay (Romans 9). In any case, if God’s authorship is only so distant (I did not make the computer, the software, nor did I make or control the electricity), he might not be so clearly the author of sin.
Question:…in the Westminster Confession it is stated: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”
Arthur W. Pink wrote in a book about the sovereignty of God: Once more, it needs to be carefully borne in mind that God did not decree that Adam should sin and then inject into Adam an inclination to evil, in order that His decree might be carried out. No; “God cannot be tempted, neither tempteth He any man” (James 1:13). Instead, when the Serpent came to tempt Eve, God caused her to remember His command forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and of the penalty attached to disobedience! Thus, though God had decreed the Fall, in no sense was He the Author of Adam’s sin, and at no point was Adam’s responsibility impaired. Thus may we admire and adore the “manifold wisdom of God”, in devising a way whereby His eternal decree should be accomplished, and yet the responsibility of His creatures be preserved intact.
Answer: If I am right, then they must be wrong. The question is, how can they be right without self-contradiction — that God controls all things, but he really doesn’t, that God causes all things, but he really doesn’t? The Reformed is fond of appealing to “mystery,” “paradox,” and “antinomy,” which are nothing but more dignified and deceptive terms for saying, “Clearly, I contradict myself, but I don’t care.” Instead, it seems to me that divine sovereignty is an altogether clear and coherent doctrine. It is so easy to understand. I have also answered the almost universal abuse of James 1:13. Temptation and causation are two different things, and the topic is causation, not temptation.
We must submit to the direct teachings of Scripture and its necessary implications, and not the traditions and good intentions of men.
EXCELLENT POST PHILLIP!!
Cheung points at the double-think he observes in is Calvinist brothers.
This statement from Cheung is what many of us have been replaying to rhutchin
-quote “this means only that God is compatible with himself. Thus the idea is a red herring that does not address the question.
This is Calvinisms *AS-IF* thinking
The Calvinist wants to paint a picture of a deity who controls [X] exclusively *AS-IF* he doesn’t
Cheung recognizes the double-think.
And his Calvinists friends call him names for being intellectually honest.
Hey Leighton, just listened to your blog post on Piper and Irresistible Grace, really appreciate that but couldn’t figure out how to comment there. Reading through John, and it is very clear that Jesus is teaching that those previously taught by the Father will come to Him. It is the “good soil,” the people who are already open to the things of God (the Father) who can accept and follow the call of Christ. This is interesting: Jesus says in John 3 that “anyone who follows the true way comes to the light. Then the light will show that whatever they have done was done through God [the Father].” According to Calvin, it should read, “anyone in whom the light has irresistibly shone will follow the true way.” According to Calvin, it would be impossible for a person to “follow the true way” before “coming to the light.” But Jesus says those already walking in the truth will come to the light — and by light, I think he means Himself. Now . . . it is inconceivable that Jesus would have His theology mixed up. Isn’t it? Piper is corrupting the teaching of Scripture because of his theological system. It is sad to me that I could only read the Bible in Calvin’s light, having been taught Calvin’s theology from the cradle, for so long. After believing it for almost 40 years, I cried with grief when I realized how wrong it was, and how desperately it obscured the Gospel itself, all the while claiming that Reformed theology truly IS the TRUE GOSPEL. But how hard it is for a person saturated with Calvinistic thinking to read the Bible in any other light. I believe my mind just created a Gap where it placed all the verses that didn’t seem to fit with Calvinism. I know I just glossed over verses like this because I couldn’t understand them. I couldn’t understand them because my mind was full of Calvin’s ideas. And my emotions wouldn’t accept them because Calvin passed down a fear in me — through the Dutch Reformed community — from generation to generation — that all who reject Calvin’s “gospel” are rebellious and ungrateful and unwilling to accept the truth.
Deborah:
Are you saying by this that you are like others of us on here who are recovering-Calvinists?
Hi FOH — Yes, I am a recovering Calvinist. And that is a good way to put it.
(Was it you who mentioned knowing a Steve N (last name pronounced “Win”)? I can’t remember how to spell it. I knew a guy with that name in high school.
Deborah:
I appreciate hearing your testimony of your departure from Calvinism. And no….it was not me who knew the guy you mentioned.
Deborah Hansel writes, “According to Calvin, it should read, “anyone in whom the light has irresistibly shone will follow the true way.”
That which makes it irresistible is the preceding regeneration reviving the dead spirit and the gift of faith. People who are freed form the corruption incurred by Adam’s sin can actually follow the true way. They are good soil.
Then “According to Calvin, it would be impossible for a person to “follow the true way” before “coming to the light.”
This based on Jesus’ statement in John 6, “No one can come to me…” The sinner who has not been quickened by God (Ephesians 2) continues to be spiritually dead and will not come to the light – “…the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.” (John 3)
Then, “But Jesus says those already walking in the truth will come to the light — and by light, I think he means Himself. Now . . . it is inconceivable that Jesus would have His theology mixed up. Isn’t it? ”
John 3
20 “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
Also, John 8
“Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
Thus, there is the light of life and the light of the world (Jesus) – two types of light.
Deborah,
Perhaps your Calvinist journey was like mine, based on 40-50 key verses that trumped all others, and must be interpreted a certain way (no other interpretation should be looked at).
When I was reading huge chunks of Scripture each day, I started to wonder why the 40 verses (seen a certain way) got to call all the shots.
As I looked into non-Calvinist interpretations of these 40-ish verses I felt free. I could have the other 99.9% of the Bible AND these verses!!! Joy!
You can expect these 40-50 verses to be the bread-n-butter of all Calvinistic comments toward you.
But you can see alternative interpretations of them in the main posts of Leighton, and in the comments.
Even though Leighton, Brian, and others have offered acceptable interpretations of the 40-ish verses (which allows there to be any sense to the rest of the Bible!) they are relentless pulled out again and again as trump cards.
Deborah, I would love to hear more of your story, and what events led you to turn from Calvinism. So many here have been through something similar, but I’m not sure how many were cradle Calvinists.
Please feel free to e-mail me at deborah.hansel@yahoo.com
CALVINISM’S *AS-IF* THINKING
1) Unfree-AS-IF-free:
This is where Calvin’s god decrees Cain’s inevitable fate, to murder Able, while withholding from Cain the ability to do otherwise, and giving Cain no alternative possibilities. But here Cain is “so-called” FREE, to act in accordance with his sinful desires – with the caveat that Cain’s sinful desires are also decreed as Cain’s inevitable fate, with no ability to do otherwise, and no alternative possibilities.
2) Forced-AS-IF-NOT-Forced:
This is where Calvin asserts “evil men, thieves and murderers are FORCED to do Calvin’s god’s service”. But this is a very magical FORCE which FORCES without FORCING. (just think magic invisible puppet strings and you’ve got the picture)
3) Exist-AS-IF-NOT-Exist:
This is where Calvin’s god decrees Adam free to “do otherwise”, and “the ability to refrain”, but where “do otherwise” and “the ability to refrain” don’t exist. This is one of Calvinism’s many possibilities that don’t exist AS-IF they do exist.
4) ALL-AS-IF-NOT-ALL:
This is where Calvin’s god determines **ALL** things at the foundation of the world, but not in such a way that Calvin’s god determines
**ALL** things at the foundation of the world. Because Calvin’s god does NOT determine **SOME** things at the foundation of the world. (see Aristotle’s square of opposition to understand the contradiction)
5) Impelling-AS-IF-NOT-impelling:
This is where a decree from Calvin’s god impels Cain to murder Able as Cain’s unavoidable fate. But this decree has a special magical kind of impel which has the ability to impel Cain to murder Able, in such a way as to not impel Cain to murder Able.
6) Influence-AS-IF-NOT-Influence:
Same as Impel – This is a decree which mandates Cain to murder Able. But this decree uses a special magical kind of influence which requires Cain to murder Able, and makes it impossible for Cain not to murder Able, yet without influencing Cain to murder Able.
7) Determinism-AS-IF-UN-determinism:
This is where Calvin’s god determines the Calvinist’s every thought/choice/desire/action in every part. But the Calvinist is instructed by Calvin to -quote “go about his office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”.
8) Predestined-Total-Depravity-AS-IF-NOT-Predestined:
This is where every person’s total depravity are first-conceived in the mind of god, and then predestined to occur as that
person’s unavoidable fate, but in such a way that their total-depravity are magically not predestined.
9) Theological-Determinism-AS-IF-NOT-Determinism:
This is where Theological Determinism doesn’t have the logical entailments of Determinism, because Theological Determinism is a special kind of magical Determinism that is non-deterministic by virtue of it being Theological.
10) Decreed-Divine-Knowledge-AS-IF-NOT-Decreed:
This is where Calvin’s god decrees Cain to murder Able, decreeing it as Cain’s unavoidable fate. Consequently, God knows his decrees which exactingly move Cain to murder Able. Thus Calvin’s god knows exactly how Cain will murder Abel. But this is a special kind of magical knowledge, in which Calvin’s god knows Cain is going to murder Able AS-IF Calvin’s god wasn’t the one who first conceived it, and exactingly moved Cain to murder Able, making it Cain’s unavoidable fate.
11) Immoral-AS-IF-Moral:
This is where actions are attributed to Calvin’s god, and detailed as clearly contradicting his declared moral standards in scripture. But this is a special kind of magical “moral” where actions described are said to exemplify God’s declared moral standards AS-IF they don’t contradict them.
13) Doublespeak-AS-IF-NOT-Doublespeak:
This is where Calvin’s god commands his people to repent, and choose life, AS-IF he really wills them to repent and choose life. Or where Calvin’s god commands Adam and Eve to not eat of the forbidden fruit, AS-IF he really willed them to not eat of the forbidden fruit. So, this is a special kind of divine magical doublespeak in which Calvin’s god deceives his people into believing he is speaking his “secret” will, when he is really speaking a “revealed” will AS-IF it were his TRUE will.
br.d writes, “1) Unfree-AS-IF-free:”
It should be: “Unfree in the libertarian sense-but-free in a compatibilist sense.:
Then, “2) Forced-AS-IF-NOT-Forced:”
It should be: “2) Forced-by their sin nature but not Forced by God:
br.d writes, “1) Unfree-AS-IF-free:”
rhutchin writes:
It should be: “Unfree in the libertarian sense-but-free in a compatibilist sense.:
br.d
“2) Forced-AS-IF-NOT-Forced:”
rhutchin writes
It should be: “2) Forced-by their sin nature but not Forced by God:
br.d
Actually they are perfect as they are as examples of Calvinist double-speak. 😀
br.d, you are funny. 😉 If you really internalize Calvinism, like I did, you pretty much go crazy . . . and then when you find out that God Himself has determined for some people to believe they are saved when they really aren’t, only to smite them with a greater judgement later “for their lack of gratitude,” (that comes from Calvin himself) well you’ve really reached the bottom of the gloom. If people knew what Calvin really wrote . . . and I wish people would read the Institutes, because not only what Calvin says, but the constant name-calling he uses to describe people who disagree with him . . . they would be shocked. And yet there are so many people who HAVE read the Institutes and still say it’s the most brilliant piece of Christian literature ever written (Piper). I can’t hardly talk to certain relatives without Calvin’s name coming up as the authority on pretty much all matters. Ugh . . . . . .
Thank you Deborah for you very thoughtful and sincere post!
Yes, I do know what you mean. In times past, I’ve posted excerpts from Dr. Erich Fromm – Ph.D Social Psychologist book “Escape from Freedom”. Dr. Fromm studied historical writings of Calvinists during different time periods. And he recognized in the writings of many Calvinist authors – what was for them, an over-arching sense of dread and doom. Dr. Fromm called Calvinism, a Theology of dread.
Dr. Fromm also researched the historical representations of John Calvin’s hyper-activity, noting his behavior parallels that of a person who unconsciously attempts to stave off a sense of foreboding by hyper-activity. Even though his philosophical mind believed there was nothing he could do to be saved, and no real way of knowing whether or not he was predestined him to salvation or predestined to a delusion of salvation, – yet his subconscious mind still struggled for the hope of salvation by earning it through works – and thus his hyper-activity.
Fromm also writes about how Calvinists appeared to their own internal desires and the manifested desires of others as “indicators” of whether or not they were predestined for life or death. This is almost a form of “reading tea leaves” – where the “tea leaves” are the individuals desires. If one has over-whelming desires for sinful things, then those function as possible “indicators” the person is predestined to the lake of fire.
Years ago, I had knew a brother who struggled with inappropriate desires for sisters other than his wife, whose Calvinist pastor told him he may not be predestined for life. Thus that brother’s manifested desires were used as a form of “tea leaves” reading to ascertain his future destiny.
As an ex-Calvinist, do you recognize that aspect within the Calvinist fold?
Hi br.d, thank you so much for the information! The very last pastor of the very last Calvinist church we were a part of a few years ago was deeply depressed. His wife told me that he had been diagnosed with clinical depression in his early adulthood. At this time, I was still a dedicated Calvinist myself, but I was deeply concerned about this pastor’s emotional well-being. We don’t live in the Dutch Reformed community I grew up in anymore, but this pastor was from my home town — and happened to have gone to my Calvinist high school with me, so my younger brothers knew him. He was trained at a deeply Calvinistic seminary, and was basically sent here to pastor in an otherwise “Reformed wasteland,” as I think it was put. 🙂 (That has not turned out to be the case, but that’s what they thought about our city back home.) Anyway, I was deeply concerned about this pastor’s well-being. When he preached, he seemed agitated, and I always felt like I was being verbally struck on the soul with a club. I longed to bring joy to that community, because there was a heaviness there. In fact, the only reason we joined that church was because I thought I could bring some joy and life to the people there. As we attended, I noticed more and more things that he said that deeply disturbed me. One of the things that was troubling was that the pastor was overtly suspicious of the salvation status of the people in his flock. He repeatedly asked people to share “when they were saved,” even though they had already shared with him before. He did this to me personally, and I heard him do it to others in my presence. I think he was looking for evidence of salvation in our testimonies, in order to make sure we were elect. One time he preached a sermon entitled, “You must be born again.” Here is the sermon in a nutshell: “Nothing you do can make you born again. Only God can do that. But you must be born again to be saved.” After I heard this sermon, along with hearing other things from the pulpit like, “The arrows of God’s wrath are pointed straight at your heart and long to be drunk with your blood,” I asked the pastor how a person can know if “they are born again.” He sent me a sermon script from Jonathan Edwards wherein Edwards gives a long list of “tea leaves” by which a person can determine if they are saved or not. I then underwent a personal journey to a despairing place whereby I tried to determine if my desires/actions showed that God was causing me to persevere in the faith. Whenever I sinned, I took relief in the fact that my sins grieved me, but at the same time I was distressed that I was not overcoming these sins, and since I was trained to believe that there’s nothing that I myself can do to overcome my sins, I didn’t understand why God wasn’t answering my prayers to change my heart and mind in a way that would cause me to overcome. The basic message from the pastor was that sins in the life of a believer are “no problem,” because they are forgiven by God already, and yet, they are a big problem because they could mean that you were never saved to begin with, etc. This is the crazy-making of Calvinism. You have no power to overcome even the smallest sins, but overcoming your sins is the only test by which you can know if you are of the elect. And then, as I mentioned before, Calvin says that some people are led by God to believe they are saved when they aren’t . . . and so the pastor desperately seemed to be trying to save people with real salvation who only had a false salvation, and yet his hands were tied by God’s own predestined word on the matter . . . so no wonder the guy was depressed! I still pray for him!
This is an example of how destructive to one’s faith, hope and joy Calvinism essentially is. Whereas, those who rely on the true essence of the gospel – God’s goodness and mercy – can ‘endure’ Calvinism’s faulty teaching with seeming little harm, inevitably the faulty thinking begins to chip away at true faith. Initially, when I entered into the Calvinist fold, since I essentially held it to be false but in an ignorant, harmless sort of way, it did not have much effect on me. Yet with time and repetition, many of the faulty precepts began to make their way into my thinking.
To make a long story short, eventually the logic of Calvinism became crystal clear, and I was faced with the prospect of embracing or rejecting it. To embrace it meant to once and for all silence that voice in my spirit which sought to convict me of sin, to instruct me in God’s ways and to lead me in the paths God desired me to go. To reject it meant to cut myself off from my church and friends, and perhaps my spouse and family. This was the defining moment in my lifelong walk with God; that Joshua moment when I felt God setting before me life and death, and allowing me to make the choice.
This confrontation with the living God is what Calvinism mostly prevents. In its place, individuals are led into a maze of endless confusion, contradictions and doctrinal debates. It is these mind games, they are misled to believe, that are the task and duty of the children of God, rather than the true tasks that Jesus set before us, to feed the hungry, mourn with the suffering, comfort the oppressed and offer the only true promise of hope which is in the promised redemption of all things on the appointed day.
Thus, Calvinists love to debate and dispute, condemning any genuine serving of the lost and needy as a ‘social gospel’. As Deborah pointed out, and few grasp, there is a hopeless contradiction in the subtle teaching that a) sin doesn’t matter, yet b) sin suggests you are not ‘elect’ or chosen for redemption and glory. Thus the consistent Calvinist is left in hopeless despair as he is literally ‘damned if I do’ and ‘damned if I don’t’.
ts00 writes, “…when I felt God setting before me life and death, and allowing me to make the choice.”
At least, you have not rejected all of Calvinism recognizing that it was God who set life and death before you and granted you freedom to choose – of course the decision was a no-brainer for so God intended it.
WOW!!!
That is a huge testimony Deborah!!
I’m going to save your post and put it in my library on Calvinism.
Thank you so much for taking the time and care to post it.
You really have an ability to accurately reflect the internal psychological struggle the doctrine produces.
I honor that as a wonderful gift God has specifically given to you!
He really does work all things for the good!!
Even the torments brought about by the Gnostic components of Calvin’s doctrine.
Wonderful post – thank you!!
I agree with br.d.
You have enriched the dialog with personal insights and testimony.
The “once a Calvinist, always a Calvinist” mantra is again seen as a hollow slogan.
Of course, your salvation or love for Christ will be called into question by die-hards who doubt your sincerity or outright disbelieve you.
For those who are committed to the determinist philosophy (unquestionably) they have no room in their cognitive grid for a person like you, or me, or TS00. You were born and bathed in it. TS00 and I were taught it and swallowed it (myself going farther and propagating it) ….and yet….did not see it hold up in Scripture.
We fix our eyes on Christ, not heeding those who say we are apostate!
FOH, so here is my question – Where do people like us – me – go from here? I have visited many different churches, and find them all somewhere on the ‘spectrum’, as Calvinist thinking is subtly pervasive in pretty much all of Protestant Christianity, being its undeniable forefather. Even those churches and pastors who know nothing of Calvinism, or who claim to reject its teachings, have succumbed to faulty definitions of sin (Total Depravity), a forensic, legal concept of salvation rather than a literal new birth and genuine, ongoing relationship, etc. Add to this a very unbiblical approach to fellowship and encouragement of the ekklesia – known as ‘Church’ – in which people march in, sing a few songs, then listen to some wise guy’s monologue of his personal interpretation of scripture, completely ignoring the calls of scripture to seek, study and judge the teaching presented to see whether it is so. I find myself at a loss, seeking only to have have genuine fellowship with humble, trusting believers who know they have a lot to learn from one another, without all of the destructive man-made traditions of the hierarchical, authoritarian Institutional Church. Sorry if that steps on a lot of (most) toes.
Hi Truthseeker,
You may be interested in checking out ex-Calvinists who have become affiliated with William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” chapters.
Someone in their group would not only be good for a testimony of why they came out of Calvinism, but through the “Reasonable Faith” chapters, which have sprung up in numerous states, would know of assemblies or groups in a specific geographical area you may be interested in contacting.
I know of one group called “Free Thinking Ministries” http://freethinkingministries.com/
TS00
A sincere question and worthy of time….which I dont have right now.
As for my wife and me, we first moved from a Reformed church —-to a generic Bible church (but most of them did not have push-back ready when the YRR wave hit) —-then to a historically non-reformed, holiness type church.
I cannot say they do not follow the yada-yada churchiness that you mentioned….but in the “man has some obligations to Christ” category we are satisfied.
Can we ever completely know the koinonia that you long for—-here on earth? I am not sure. But being in fellowship with folks who do not insist that their version of God be one of totalitarian-rule over people who were created with intentional-depravity…..and being with people who tend to quote WL Craig and Greg Boyd as opposed to Piper and Sproul, goes a long way in forgiving them the modern-shallow style of “churching”.
Hope that helps. Press on—-one God-person will not let you down.
FOH writes, “For those who are committed to the determinist philosophy (unquestionably)…”
Everyone embraces determinism to some extent. No one disputes that it was God who determined the creation of the universe, the earth, and mankind; brought the flood of Noah and destroyed Sodom and the cities, chose Abraham, and many other events. The argument is over the extent to which God has determined events – whether all things as the Calvinists say or something less than all things as non-Calvinists say.
Rhutchin writes: “Everyone embraces determinism to some extent. ”
Another attempt to muddy the waters. It is blatantly deceptive to pretend that Calvinism’s definitions of ‘Sovereignty’, ‘Determinism’, ‘Grace’, ‘Faith’ and many other terms are the same as non-Calvinism’s definitions. Once again, for those who haven’t caught on yet, the strategy of Calvinism is to borrow scriptural terms, redefine them, then use them among potential converts as if with the commonly understood meaning. This is akin to telling your child ‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus’, when in reality you define ‘Santa’ as ‘God’ or perhaps ‘thee goodness within men’ and intend on explaining the truth when your child is older.
Calvinists often pretend that their theology does not deny the existence of the God of scripture: A god who is wholly good, trustworthy, just and merciful, genuinely desiring that ALL men turn from wickedness, receive his costly pardon and live with him in right relationship for eternity. Thus, they borrow scriptural terms, and use them deceptively. They speak of the God who determines many for eternal destruction without hope of escape as having ‘love’ for those damned all along. They insist that ordaining (irresistibly bringing to pass, whatever term you choose) evil then punishing those who could do not but perform the evil ordained is ‘just’. They insist that man’s sin is no longer seen by God, yet at the same time assert that the genuinely ‘elect’ must pursue ‘purity’, creating a jumbled, nonsensical confusion about what sin, righteousness, justification, sanctification, etc., really mean, or if, why or how much they matter.
On and on it goes, word games, disingenuousness, contradictions, mystery; all leading the helplessly confused convert to throw up his hands at his inability to figure it all out and just trust his ‘authorities’ to tell him what is true and necessary. In effect, restoring the position and authority of the priesthood which Jesus promised to put an end to by granting the very indwelling of the Spirit of God within each believer.
Such are the things the blindly loyal Calvinist in the pew is rarely aware of, hearing the familiar Christian buzzwords and assuming all is well. All unawares, he finds his faith, hope and joy slowly whittled away until nothing remains but a legalistic, sacral religion that looks terribly similar to Judaism, the gospel of ‘the chosen ones’ that the New Testament (as well as the Old) denounces.
ts00 writes, “Another attempt to muddy the waters. It is blatantly deceptive to pretend that Calvinism’s definitions of ‘Sovereignty’, ‘Determinism’, ‘Grace’, ‘Faith’ and many other terms are the same as non-Calvinism’s definitions.”
Arminius embraced Calvinist doctrine and the definitions of terms before he sought to exalt the role of man in the salvation process. The Arminians then found themselves in the position of “tweaking” those definitions. It was the non-Calvinists who had to muddy the waters to enhance the role of man in salvation.
Then, “…he strategy of Calvinism is to borrow scriptural terms, redefine them,…”
Calvinism strictly adheres to the scriptures in defining terms. For example, faith is defined by Hebrews 11. I have yet to see you or any others who oppose Calvinism meet the Calvinists head-on and deal with the Scriptures upon which Calvinist doctrine is based. FOH is fond of promoting certain verses to support his philosophy while dismissing any verses that disagree with his conclusions.
Then, “Calvinists often pretend that their theology does not deny the existence of the God of scripture: A god who is wholly good, trustworthy, just and merciful, genuinely desiring that ALL men turn from wickedness, receive his costly pardon and live with him in right relationship for eternity.”
This is the Universalist argument. The Scriptures contain specific references to some not being saved – nonetheless, no Calvinist would have a problem if God determined to save all people.
TS00
Let’s look together at Hebrews 11. I would love to!
As I have mentioned in the past, multiple times, when I re-examined the 40-50 verses on which I and others based our Calvinism I found very reliable alternative interpretations available. No verse in Hebrews 11 is EVEN IN the Calvinist camp, so no one needs help seeing them the non-Calvinist way. That is the way anyone would see them in a simple reading.
Hebrews 11 (from the Calvinist ESV).
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation [people are commended for something they did—-not something foisted on them].
3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
4 By faith Abel offered [verb, action on his part] to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended [there it is again! Silly to “commend” someone for something he had nothing to do with!] as righteous, God commending him [there it is again!] by accepting his gifts [God accepts his gift; He doesn’t give him the gift to give Him] . And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks [he still speaks because we can strengthen our faith from seeing his faith].
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended [again!!] as having pleased God [Enoch pleased God?? Yes! By his faith]. [Why does the Bible even talk about all the people who “pleased God” if what they did was ‘unforced-forced’ on them?]
6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God [apparently we can draw near to God, some thing we are told is impossible] must believe [we must believe] that he exists and that he rewards [ I love that—He rewards!!!] those who seek him [apparently we can seek Him!!!] . 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear [God warned…. and then Noah had faith and reverent fear] constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8 By faith Abraham obeyed [personal faith, personal obedience] when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power……
on and on and on…….
What is the point of all the people’s names and examples of faith? The chapter is pointless if all along God’s plan is that no one can have faith unless it is a special gift. Why no hint of —– say, “Able exercised the faith that God gave him to …” There…I just wrote that out easily enough. Seems easy enough to say at least ONCE in the Bible.
Nothing supporting the “man cannot have faith” idea of Calvinism. Everything indicating a “have faith!!” appeal to all men.
Nothing supporting the “faith is the special gift given only to .0005% of people” idea of Calvinism.
Nothing supporting the “we are too dead to have faith” idea of Calvinism.
Nothing supporting the “we are made alive, then given faith (irresistibly), then commended for the faith we did not have and could not resist” idea of Calvinism.
Yes….TS00….and all the while some have the nerve to say that Hebrews 11 is where Calvin gets his ideas on faith!!! Where?
That is like saying that Luther got his ideas of grace from James, what he called “the epistle of straw”!
When FOH wrote: “For those who are committed to the DETERMINIST PHILOSOPHY (unquestionably)…”
He was specifically referring to “DETERMINIST PHILOSOPHY” and not to obvious “event-event” causation which every adult understands.
Since those who are committed to “DETERMINIST PHILOSOPHY” hold that **ALL** things are determined in the past, your comment simply re-states the obvious.
Deborah Hansel writes, “This is the crazy-making of Calvinism. You have no power to overcome even the smallest sins, but overcoming your sins is the only test by which you can know if you are of the elect. ”
This is not unique to Calvinism. Regardless one’s theology, the continuing presence of sin in one’s life AFTER being saved is probably the number one issue by a mile for believers. The problem for Calvinists is that they tend to take any sin after salvation as an indication that God may not have saved them. So, if you have found that sin is not a big issue with people you associate with now, then you are probably experiencing the opposite extreme. When you sort out the sin issue, you can go back and help the depressed pastor in your previous church. I would bet that the most depressing part of being a Pastor is the ongoing sin of their congregations – every church is basically a 1 Corinthians church and has problems.
Deborah Hansel writes, “when you find out that God Himself has determined for some people to believe they are saved when they really aren’t, only to smite them with a greater judgement later “for their lack of gratitude,” (that comes from Calvin himself) well you’ve really reached the bottom of the gloom.”
Yet, Calvin only mirrors what Christ said, ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7)
Then, “I wish people would read the Institutes, because not only what Calvin says, but the constant name-calling he uses to describe people who disagree with him . . .”
Lurther was worse given what biographers write. I guess people took their theology seriously back then.
Then, “there are so many people who HAVE read the Institutes and still say it’s the most brilliant piece of Christian literature ”
What would you put ahead of it?? Just because you don’t like what Calvin wrote does not mean that he was not brilliant nor that the Institutes is not a brilliant work. Considering that Calvin wrote the Institutes in his early twenties, it would be foolish to think he was not unusually gifted.
Deborah Hansel writes,
“when you find out that God Himself has determined for some people to believe they are saved when they really aren’t, only to smite them with a greater judgement later…..”
rhutchin writes:
Yet, Calvin only mirrors what Christ said,….etc.
br.d
Please show us where Jesus says EXPLICITLY that God deceives people into believing they are saved in order to magnify their torment in the lake of fire.
We’re already familiar with Calvinist eisegesis, so what is required is at least one verse that EXPLICITLY states the proposition.
FOH, yes, that’s true. I was a Calvinist for a long time. I know all the verses. 🙂 I come from a long line of Calvinist thinkers. My great-uncle, John Stek, was the chair of the committee that translated the NIV. I went to Calvin College and took several theology classes, have read key books by Sproul, Piper, etc. 🙂 I debated people on Calvin’s side, and I believed that all those who truly read the Bible with an honest eye would arrive at Calvinistic conclusions. So yes, I know exactly what to expect from Calvinists. And something I find truly amusing is this: now that I’m on “the other side,” Calvinists younger than me, and who have not been Calvinist thinkers as long as I was, tell me I “don’t understand Calvinism.” Oh, the foolish pride . . .
Deborah Hansel writes, “I come from a long line of Calvinist thinkers.”
I hope you stick around – especially to correct any deficiencies in my understanding of Calvinism (which is more reformed as I read a lot of Sproul).
If every sin that would ever be commited was completely “written out” in God’s foreknowledge before creation …. how is God not the “author” of every sin? There was no-one else around that could “write”.
The Calvinist, Arminian, and Molinist only have contradictory explananations or appeals to mystery when holding to their view of completed foreknowledge. But if the foreknowledge is still being “written” by a mind with infinite understanding of all possibilities that yet exist… there is no contradiction, and there is complete conformity with the biblical record!
Brian writes to rhutchin:
If every sin that would ever be commited was completely “written out” in God’s foreknowledge before creation …. how is God not the “author” of every sin? There was no-one else around that could “write”.
br.d
Like Bill Clinton’s famous reply: “that depends on your definition of what IS – is”.
The Calvinist would say “That depends on your definition of what “write” is. 😀
brianwagner writes, “If every sin that would ever be commited was completely “written out” in God’s foreknowledge before creation …. how is God not the “author” of every sin? There was no-one else around that could “write”.’
If all that is meant by “author” is that God knows – or writes down – the contents of His foreknowledge, then I don’t see an issue with Calvinism.
Then, “The Calvinist, Arminian, and Molinist only have contradictory explananations or appeals to mystery when holding to their view of completed foreknowledge.”
I don’t see them as contradictory. A Calvinist says that God’s foreknowledge comes from His decrees, while some non-Calvinists say that God’s foreknowledge comes from His ability to see the future actions of people. Some non-Calvinists say that we don’t know how God knows the future and thus it is a mystery. Molinists propose a different means. There are differences among them but not contradictions unless you mean that the differences contradict each other,.
Then, “But if the foreknowledge is still being “written” by a mind with infinite understanding of all possibilities that yet exist… there is no contradiction, and there is complete conformity with the biblical record!”
Or God’s knowledge is still increasing as He learns how future events unfold.
Brian is savvy enough to discern your responses are simply more attempts to evade the points he raises.
Good examples for us though. 😀
“Written” into certainty, confirms that each written event will necessarily happen. If they (all sins) necessarily will happen then there is no contra-causal freedom in any of its participants to keep them from happening, except perhaps in the one who “wrote” it, but He determined not to use that freedom. So God is the author before creation of all sins according to Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism.
brianwagner writes, ““Written” into certainty, confirms that each written event will necessarily happen. If they (all sins) necessarily will happen then there is no contra-causal freedom in any of its participants to keep them from happening,”
In other words, there is no libertarian free will. This is the import of Jesus statements, “No one can come to me…” and “…everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.”
Then, “So God is the author before creation of all sins according to Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism.”
So, no issue among Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism.
Embracing any ‘ism’ is a sure path to error. Follow the Spirit of God, who will teach us all things as promised, if we will only surrender our loyalty to preconceived notions and listen to the voice of truth.
Thank Roger that God is the author of all sins in those three theological systems and that there was no freedom in Satan, Adam, or the rest of mankind, including you and me to avoid or reject any sins we commit according to those theologies.
If course I reject that view of God, free will and sin.
brianwagner writes, “If course I reject that view of God, free will and sin.”
Which means you necessarily deny that God is omniscient in the reformed, Arminian, molinist sense of the word.
Exactly! The Scripture does not support their definition of omniscience though it may hint at it in places, but in many places it clearly contradicts their definition. I am sticking with Scripture’s view of omniscience and not that of Calvinism, Arminianism, or Molinism…. just like I will stick with the Scripture’s view of credo-baptism and reject fully paedo-baptism.
brianwagner writes, “The Scripture does not support their definition of omniscience though it may hint at it in places, but in many places it clearly contradicts their definition”
They disagree. Thus, the debate.
brianwagner writes, “If course I reject that view of God, free will and sin.”
rhutchin writes:
Which means you necessarily deny that God is omniscient in the reformed, Arminian, molinist sense of the word.
br.d
This is another good example of how smoothly and naturally Calvinists make stuff up. 😀
Roger do you agree that God has given mankind freedom to choose “morally”, but not “spiritually”? In other words, post Fall mankind can make the moral choice to commit or refrain from committing certain sins. However, mankind is not free to make spiritual choices (i.e. believing the Gospel) unless regenerated.
I believe many people fail to make this distinction and therefore complicate the argument.
Also, I believe that theologians, such as Leighton and Brian, unwittingly blame God for creating us (post Fall) with a nature that naturally lusts after sin. For example, Flowers is famous for stating that Calvinists teach that mankind is only behaving according to their God-given desires. But what he fails to understand is that God has given us the ABILITY to desire wicked things. However, He does NOT give us the actual desire to sin as James 1:13 plainly teaches. But Leighton and Brian insist that Reformed Theology puts the blame on God since we are created with a fallen nature that produces wicked desires, including that of hating his Creator. They both are, in essence, blaming God for mankind’s sinfulness and inability to make spiritual choices.
Troy writes:
Roger do you agree that God has given mankind freedom to choose “morally”, but not “spiritually”? In other words, post Fall mankind can make the moral choice to commit or refrain from committing certain sins. However, mankind is not free to make spiritual choices (i.e. believing the Gospel) unless regenerated.
br.d
Both Calvin and Augustine are somewhat inconsistent on this point. For example, Calvin writes: “Free will exists, but only for mundane matters, not in relation to spiritual matters” (Institutes 2.5.19).
However in other places he totally rules out any decree of creaturely in-determinism.
However, historians also note that later Calvinists, especially of the Edwardian kind, sought to be as logically consistent as possible with Theological Determinism, and hence the statement in the Westminster Confession that *ALL* things **UNIVERSALLY** which come to pass, do so from immutable decrees.
Theological Determinism – being based upon determinism, rules out any form of “alternative possibilities” or “do otherwise” from what the THEOS determines – which in this case is ALL INCLUSIVE.
That is why Calvinism is called **UNIVERSAL** divine causal determinism.
In Philosophy “universal” entails everything without exception.
Troy asks, “do you agree that God has given mankind freedom to choose “morally”, but not “spiritually”? In other words, post Fall mankind can make the moral choice to commit or refrain from committing certain sins. However, mankind is not free to make spiritual choices (i.e. believing the Gospel) unless regenerated.”
This relates to “Original Sin.” What were the consequences of Adam’s sin? Many conclude that the death incurred because of Adam’s sin was both spiritual and physical – spiritual death immediately and physical death necessarily but future. Spiritual death was then inherited by Adam’s progeny. Also lost was “faith” or the ability to please God. Because of these two effects, spiritual death and loss of faith, no person is able to do any spiritual good without first being made spiritually alive and having faith restored – a process Calvinists call, regeneration. In addition, Adam’s sin resulted in the corruption of his nature and mind and this too was passed on to his progeny. By this corruption, a person chooses to do that which is in his interest so far as he perceives it. Thus, a person makes “moral” choices that benefit him and those moral choices are based on his personal morality. We then have each person making “moral” choices based on their individual moral positions. However, every choice a person makes is done to glorify himself and not God, so every choice a person makes is sin. We have Paul saying, “whatever is not from faith is sin,” which some might limit to the immediate context but I take it as an universal truth – only that done in faith leases God and is not sin.
Then, “Leighton and Brian insist that Reformed Theology puts the blame on God since we are created with a fallen nature that produces wicked desires, including that of hating his Creator.”
After Adam, we are born with a fallen nature from which wicked desires arise. God decreed this outcome and Calvin called it the terrible decree. I don’t know that I would use the word, “blame,” but they are correct in that Reformed Theology traces the human nature back to God’s decree – “…in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” They are disagreeing on the doctrine of original sin.
Beautifully explained Roger!! Thank you for responding sir!
Troy,
I am afraid it is only “beautiful” to you since that is what you want the answer to be.
Take for instance….
Also lost was “faith” or the ability to please God. Because of these two effects, spiritual death and loss of faith, no person is able to do any spiritual good without first being made spiritually alive and having faith restored…
This man-made explanation rams immediately into Scripture….in the next chapter.
Gen 4:4 And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”
Here we see the man-made reformed ideas immediately contradicted in Scripture.
There is no reference or implication that Able was “made alive” and then gave an offering that was pleasing. No!
There is no reference or implication that Cain was “unable” to do good. God even tells him he could and should!
I find that —-in the immediate Scripture context —the “beautiful’ statement above is a blatant contradiction of Scripture.
We cant just read Genesis 3 and then stop reading the Bible and start philosophizing with man-made definitions of “dead”!
You cannot just super-impose some philosophical position on these verses. They say clearly that “the progeny” of Adam gave an offering that was acceptable and the one who did not—could have!
This is later back up in Hebrews 11
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.
FOH writes, “There is no reference or implication that Able was “made alive” and then gave an offering that was pleasing. No!
There is no reference or implication that Cain was “unable” to do good. God even tells him he could and should!”
That is why the NT is so valuable to us, as we read Paul’s doctrinal explanations.
FOH, the defender of Reformed Theology can wax so poetic; too bad he is totally, repeatedly contradicted by event after event in scripture. Their system is internally consistent (when the speaker is brave enough to own it), but nothing at all like the gospel appeal to men through the many, consistent stories of scripture which depict a holy God appealing to willfully disobedient man time after time to repent, accept God’s provision of atonement and his promise of redemption.
I especially liked this Christ-honoring heart-felt post! Thanks Truthseeker!
Indeed! Jesus (in Matt 23 and Luke 13) calls out to His people in Jerusalem and says they stoned the prophets God sent to them (not God’s doing…theirs) and that He would gather them like a mother hen does…..but they were not willing.
Is this Christ Himself preaching a “man-centered Gospel”? I mean He is saying—- I (God in the flesh) wanted you to come, but you were not willing.
Many today would accuse Him of preaching a “man-centered Gospel.”
Good point! :-]
I truly do not understand what is so hard about understanding the clear gospel message. So many believers, down through the centuries, have understood it well enough to understand God’s call to turn from sin and trust in Him. I just keep going back to Romans 1 (so sad they left those first 8 chapters out of the Reformed bible). Calvinists are without excuse. They know God, but refuse to honor him as he has revealed himself. They have become futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds are darkened. Claiming to be wise, they have become fools . . .
ts00 writes, “I truly do not understand what is so hard about understanding the clear gospel message. So many believers, down through the centuries, have understood it well enough to understand God’s call to turn from sin and trust in Him.”
The difficulty is not that people understand the Scriptures but that people do not understand the Scriptures. All should be saved but all are not. The reason for that is what Calvinism does not shy away from.
FOH writes, “Jesus (in Matt 23 and Luke 13) calls out to His people in Jerusalem and says they stoned the prophets God sent to them (not God’s doing…theirs) and that He would gather them like a mother hen does…..but they were not willing. ”
FOH has a creative imagination. Matthew 23 and Luke 13 do not say what he claims.
ts00 writes, “scripture…depict a holy God appealing to willfully disobedient man time after time to repent, accept God’s provision of atonement and his promise of redemption.”
This is what Calvinism maintains. Are not these the willfully disobedient people Paul describes in Romans 1? How can such people be saved if God does not give them faith?
Troy,
This may sound “beautiful” to you ……
However, every choice a person makes is done to glorify himself and not God, so every choice a person makes is sin.
…..but it flies in the face of the following verses in Genesis.
There is no hint whatsoever in the record God gives to us that Able’s actions were selfish. In fact in Genesis and Hebrews he is lauded for the actions he did by faith. Matthew 23:35 calls him “righteous Able”.
Now you can superimpose some kind of “too-dead-but-then-made-alive-then-non-forcing-coerced-to-act-then-commended” eisegesis onto every passage in the Bible that tells of someones actions (i.e Luke 1:5 Zechariah …..and Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.)….. and thousands more like that(!!) but you have to bear the responsibility of reading-into Scripture on every one of those.
If that is beautiful to you, that is a choice you are making. I prefer to read Scripture and not philosophize.
FOH writes, “There is no hint whatsoever in the record God gives to us that Able’s actions were selfish.”
We can conclude that God had saved Abel and that God had regenerated him – this being consistent with Abel’s actions.
Troy,
One more comment on the non-scriptural foundation of that “beautiful” comment.
If we use the NT to interpret the OT we come up with the same results as reading Genesis 4 stand-alone.
With the knowledge that fallen Able had, he brought an acceptable sacrifice. Cain had the same knowledge and was even warned. (See ESV Gen 4 below)…
Gen 4:4 And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”
………………..
NT Hebrews backs this up….
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Even Paul backs this up…..
Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Gal 3:6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Abel believed God and offered an acceptable sacrifice and was “commended” and called “righteous Abel” for it.
Cain did not believe God— even though warned by God—- and did not obey.
God says to Cain….do well and you will be accepted. He says to him ….sin is crouching….and you have to rule over it.
What kind of nonsensical words from God are these—-if indeed God had no plans of “making alive” Cain so that he could do it?
It just makes no sense and accuses God of commanding people to do things He does not empower them to do.
FOH writes, “Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Abel believed God and offered an acceptable sacrifice and was “commended” and called “righteous Abel” for it.
Cain did not believe God— even though warned by God—- and did not obey.”
So, the difference is that Abel had faith and Cain did not.
Then, “What kind of nonsensical words from God are these—-if indeed God had no plans of “making alive” Cain so that he could do it?”
Yet, faith is a gift from God and without that gift, Cain could not please God. Lacking faith, Cain murdered Abel.
rhutchin writes:
In other words, there is no libertarian free will. ….etc
So, no issue among Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism.
William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga disagree.
Molina concurred with Luther and Calvin that placing God’s counterfactual knowledge after his creative decree would obliterate libertarian freedom, a consequence that Luther and Calvin accepted.
But because Molina judged that this consequence ran contrary to the infallibility of Scripture, Molina placed God’s counterfactual knowledge before the divine creative decree………Now certainly, Molina insisted, God could easily prevent a libertarian creature from freely doing something by not making that creature at all or by putting that creature in different circumstances where it would freely choose to do something else via libertarian freedom. Contra any form of determinism, the circumstances do not bring about or cause actions and therefore do nothing to dictate decisions. But there simply are contingent facts that in various circumstances, creatures would freely (i.e., indeterministically) do various things. And God, as an omniscient being, knows these facts. – – Luis de Molina “Kirk R. MacGregor.
Hence, in Molinism, God’s omniscience is not limited as it is in Calvinism by the inability to know only what he decrees. And secondly Human freedom of the will is not reduced as it is in Calvinism, to nothing more than a will controlled and manipulated by the invisible puppet strings of immutable decrees.
br.d writes, ” in Molinism, God’s omniscience is not limited as it is in Calvinism by the inability to know only what he decrees.”
As said before, Molinism deals with circumstances prior to Genesis 1:1; Calvinism deals with the world from Genesis 1:1. That world decreed by God under Molinsim and brought to pass beginning in Genesis 1:1 is known to God completely from beginning to end. Even while God knows the world He decreed and created, no one says God does not know that He could have done things differently.
Then, “And secondly Human freedom of the will is not reduced as it is in Calvinism, to nothing more than a will controlled and manipulated by the invisible puppet strings of immutable decrees.”
Once Adam sins in Genesis 3, the effects of that sin reduce human freedom to choosing as one’s sinful nature desires so that any libertarian freedom that Adam had possessed was destroyed and does not reappear until a sinner is regenerated. The puppet, in this case, is not an inanimate wood object dangling from the strings unable to move except as the strings move but a living being possessing the ability to move about freely in pursuit of his desires except as constrained by the strings.
br.d writes, ” in Molinism, God’s omniscience is not limited as it is in Calvinism by the inability to know only what he decrees.”
ruthcin responds
As said before, Molinism deals with circumstances prior to Genesis 1:1; Calvinism deals with the world from Genesis 1:1. …..etc
br.d
Your distorted representations of alternatives to Calvinism are consistent with Calvinist tactics. No one assumes what you post is accurate except for yourself – and perhaps Troy.
rhutchin:
Once Adam sins in Genesis 3, the effects of that sin…..etc.
br.d
Everyone here already sees past Calvinist exculpatory evasion arguments. Already know that in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god is the SOURCE/AUTHOR, FIRST CAUSE, and DIVINE MOVER of Adamic sin.
Calvinists forever remind me of puppets obsessed with making their immutable strings invisible. 😀
CLOSER TO TRUTH – Host – Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Interviews William Lane Craig on the four historical views of divine foreknowledge.
“How does God know the future?”
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/how-could-god-know-the-future#video-2056
Yay br.d, thank you for the link, I loved it!
My pleasure!! :-]
br.d writes, “Robert Lawrence Kuhn Interviews William Lane Craig on the four historical views of divine foreknowledge.”
The argument seems to come down to two positions. God is omniscient and knows the future without having to learn how the future unfolds or God is not omniscient and has to learn how the future unfolds (by being outside time and seeing past, present and future at one time or be being able to look into the future to observe how events unfold).
And there are other positions that you well know, Roger… so it doesn’t come down to just two! And there are other definitions of omniscience. Only the Scripture owns the real definition of that word… man doesn’t.
brianwagner writes, “there are other positions that you well know,”
Actually, I don’t. I do think it comes down to those two positions. As you note, “there are other definitions of omniscience.” Pick any definition of omniscience and you get two positions, one that is consistent with that definition and one that is not.
br.d
Robert Lawrence Kuhn Interviews William Lane Craig on the four historical views of divine foreknowledge.”
rhutchin:
The argument seems to come down to two positions. God is omniscient and knows the future without having to learn how the future unfolds or God is not omniscient and has to learn how the future unfolds (by being outside time and seeing past, present and future at one time or be being able to look into the future to observe how events unfold).
br.d
Here the Calvinist again gives [A] with one hand and takes [A] with the other. Asserting [A] while appearing to be denying [A].
Calvinism makes divine omniscience a byproduct of divine decrees, which rejects divine omniscience as “essential” to God’s existence (which is the classic and orthodox doctrine of omniscience).
In Calvinism, Calvin’s god exists in a state absent of omniscience (logically) prior to his decree to create the world. Thus in this view Calvin’s god *GAINS* knowledge that he does not have (logically) prior to decrees. Whether one want’s to call this “LEARNING” or not is a different argument. However the end result is the same, whether LEARNING or GAINING – Calvin’s god exists without comprehensive omniscience prior to decrees – and must GAIN or LEARN knowledge via decrees.
Dr. Craig however is affirming the classic orthodox doctrine of “essential” and “eternal” omniscience.
God has infallible and fully comprehensive knowledge of all future tense (contingent) propositions. Including those involving human libertarian free choices – prior to his decree to create the world.
Additionally rhutchin’s comment presupposes a “perceptual” model of divine omniscience which Dr. Craig argues is anthropomorphic and fraught with logical problems.
br.d writes, “Calvinism makes divine omniscience a byproduct of divine decrees, which rejects divine omniscience as “essential” to God’s existence (which is the classic and orthodox doctrine of omniscience). ”
br.d seems to be saying that God knows what He will decree before He decrees them but if God knows what He will decree, then necessarily He has already decreed such.
br.d writes, “Calvinism makes divine omniscience a byproduct of divine decrees, which rejects divine omniscience as “essential” to God’s existence (which is the classic and orthodox doctrine of omniscience). ”
rhutchin responds
br.d seems to be saying that God knows what He will decree before He decrees them. But if God knows what He will decree, then necessarily He has already decreed such.
br.d
Seems to be saying??
This is the Calvinists way of adding confusion to what is clearly said so that he can “reform” it into his own image.
Its actually is fun to watch Calvinists chasing their own tail.
-quote ” if God knows what He will decree, then necessarily He has already decreed such”
Here we have Calvin’s god foreknowing he does [X] before he does [X] because he already previously does [X] before he foreknows he does [X].
And that – in the Calvinist mind is rational reasoning!! 😛
or . . . 500 angels could not possibly fit on the head of a pin, so even if scripture asserts it to be true, we must appeal to Paul, who quotes Jeremiah, who speaks for God and . . . voila, we find scripture means whatever John Calvin says!
voila, we find scripture means whatever John Calvin says!
Yes that does appear to be the bottom line doesn’t it.
Calvinism “re-forms” three things: (1) Language, (2) Logic (3) scripture
“re-forming” these into a man’s image.
The image of a deity who speaks with forked tongue – and worshipers who follow its example.
I love that old joke:
“God decided to make man in his image and John Calvin decided to return the favor”. 😀
On a more serious note, your words bring to mind the prophecy scripture foretells of all being required to bow to an idol that is declared the ‘true God’.
Good one!
In this case:
“As soon as you hear the sounds of the reformed horns, flutes, zithers, lyres, harps, pipes and all kinds of beguiling double-talk – you must fall down and worship the image of the “pure gospel” that King Calvin has set up. Daniel 3:5
“God decided to make man in his image and John Calvin decided to return the favor”. 😀 That’s actually a new rendition of that one to me – love it!
Daily through the Bible reading has me for the OT part in Amos.
The Lord repeats this formula for several nations.
1:6 This is what the Lord says:
“The people of Gaza [other nations also verses later] have sinned again and again,
and I will not let them go unpunished!
They sent whole villages into exile,
selling them as slaves to Edom.
7 So I will send down fire on the walls of Gaza,
and all its fortresses will be destroyed.
8 I will slaughter the people of Ashdod
and destroy the king of Ashkelon.
Then I will turn to attack Ekron,
and the few Philistines still left will be killed,”
says the Sovereign Lord.
The LORD says —the XY people did this—- so I will now do this….says the Sovereign Lord.
What do you think that the average Israelite listening to Amos thought?
He thought that —–Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon did things that displeased God and subsequently got judged. Simple.
But no….. we are supposed to understand (oh yes…because of the Prov 16:33 dice) that God planned their disobedience all along.
What? Why? Oh yeah…..their child-sacrifice….for His glory!
FOH writes, “But no….. we are supposed to understand (oh yes…because of the Prov 16:33 dice) that God planned their disobedience all along.”
We are to understand that an omniscient God knew all these events before He created the world and that, in creating the world, God determined all these events. Further, all of these events were accomplished to affect His purpose for creating the world. From this, one might rightly conclude that God planned it all and that His plan cannot fail for God works all things after the counsel of His will.
A little further down in daily reading Amos:
2:10 It was I who rescued you from Egypt [remember I told that Passover was the most mentioned event?]
and led you through the desert for forty years,
so you could possess the land of the Amorites.
11 I chose some of your sons to be prophets
and others to be Nazirites.
Can you deny this, my people of Israel?”
asks the Lord.
12 “But you caused the Nazirites to sin by making them drink wine,
and you commanded the prophets, ‘Shut up!’
13 “So I will make you groan
like a wagon loaded down with sheaves of grain.
———————–
Here God uses the “chose” word. Some for this and some for that…
But….the people “caused” the Nazirites to sin with wine. Who caused it? God chose them for servants, but man corrupted them. This aint rocket science! Does it even hint at the idea that God decreed/ liked/ willed/ ordained/ wanted this idea? No!
Then He goes on…..So now He will……
He planned…..they did not do it……they disobeyed…… so now He will punish. Command- disobey (act) – judge (react).
What are we supposed to do with the whole book of Amos if fatalist-determinism is true. It all means nothing.
FOH writes, “But….the people “caused” the Nazirites to sin with wine. Who caused it? God chose them for servants, but man corrupted them. This aint rocket science! Does it even hint at the idea that God decreed/ liked/ willed/ ordained/ wanted this idea? No!”
Yet, it was the omnipotent God who could have protected His servants but chose not to do so thus, the people were free to corrupt God’s servants. Calvinism says that the people could only act as God determined through His decision not to protect His servants; thereby, we can say that God ultimately caused, or is responsible for, the Nazerites to sin.
Okay….one more entry from daily-reading Amos.
We now stumble upon a half-verse that figures among the 40-50 proof texts of Calvinism.
Amos 3:6 b (only half the verse)
Does disaster come to a city
unless the Lord has planned it?
————-
You can easily go on Piper’s site or monergism.com and see this half-verse yank out of context to “prove” that —- the Lord plans every sin, crime, rape, murder in history.
Dont have to worry about the thousands of other types of verses in the Bible or the dozens of verses right in the very context of this verse that show that God does not plan/ want some of the things that happen.
Really? I mean these are educated men who are so entrenched in their presuppositions that they take a few half-verses, interpret them out of context (but with their end-goal in mind) and then act amazed that we do not “get it”
And when we point to the thousands of things that happened in the Bible that God clearly says He did not want to happen….. we are told “it does not really mean that” or “God has two wills” .
It is all so confusing. Is the Bible meant to be this confusing? That we have to discern between His different levels of wills?
FOH, So personal testimony again. I, too, find myself asking, how can intelligent, educated, supposedly bible-reading believers not see what is so clearly depicted throughout scripture. It is pretty much always as You laid out:
God makes known his commands.
Man refuses to heed them – disobeys, sins, rebels.
God warns, then punishes those who persist in their rebelliousness, wickedness, sin.
This is the story of scripture, repeated again and again, with the final and pivotal twist being Jesus.
Not that he should be a big surprise, because he has been prophesied, promised and foreshadowed since Genesis. Everything, all the stories we are told, are to illustrate to us that God is and always was wholly good, that man doubted his goodness and rebelled against his authority, leaving him ripe to fleshly temptation and self-destructive sin. Seeing the hopeless, helpless state that being apart from him left us in (He actually foresaw this, but I speak as scripture often does, in the here and now.) God had already in place a plan to rescue man from this dilemma. And you can debate all day whether or not the ‘name of Jesus’ is meant literally, but in the scriptures the reference to ‘name’ nearly always meant ‘nature’. A man may not know the ‘name’ ‘Jesus’, but when he comes face to face with the ‘nature’ of God that Jesus best demonstrates, he is held accountable to whether or not he believes it. And that nature is utterly selfless, sacrificial, gracious, merciful and loving.
God did not devise a mass conversion by edict. We see in Calvin’s Geneva how that works out. Man is a free spirit, and he has to make, and live with the consequences of, his choices. All attempts at God’s kingdom by tyranny will fail, or lead to mass murder. The message we are repeatedly given is that it is individual choices that lead one down the path into sin and, if not dealt with, total depravity.
It is individual acceptance of guilt, atonement and proper submission to Godly authority that also leads to repentance, forgiveness, regeneration and a second chance at life.
ts00 writes, “God makes known his commands.
Man refuses to heed them – disobeys, sins, rebels.
God warns, then punishes those who persist in their rebelliousness, wickedness, sin.
This is the story of scripture, repeated again and again, with the final and pivotal twist being Jesus. ”
Guess you didn’t lose everything from your earlier Calvinist experience. Calvinism agrees with this.
Rhutchin writes: “Guess you didn’t lose everything from your earlier Calvinist experience. Calvinism agrees with this.”
This I will give you, that is indeed what my Calvinist pastor, for a long time, taught, which is why I was not able to distinguish between what I knew of Reformed Theology and the true gospel. Left unaddressed were the essential, foundational assertions of Calvinism, the TULIP doctrines, the assertions of the Westminster Confession and what they mean. Most who came to this church had limited experience with or understanding of Calvinism, more commonly now called Reformed Theology or Doctrines of Grace. They understandably prefer to distance themselves from the murderous John Calvin, but illegitimately so.
Nearly every fellowshipper at my former church wanted to know more about the denomination’s theology, to have classes or bible studies which would enable education and in depth discussion. It never happened. The pastor always promised them, but they never occurred. In reality, the last thing in the world he wanted was to have to admit to and defend doctrines he knew nearly every individual in his congregation would disagree with and ultimately reject. He would empty the pews faster than you can say ‘God damns men’.
I had actually explored the theology of Calvinism on my own for some months before coming to the church, but even what I thought was thorough never got past the mostly pro-Calvinist slant Google gives. Initially I did ask many hard questions, asked for information and discussion, and believed they would someday come. Instead, I allowed myself to be distracted; my attention was cleverly focused elsewhere and my affection for and loyalty to friends and fellow worshippers grew until it became difficult to imagine disentangling myself from the community. I believe this is the way, for the most part, Calvinism wins converts.
Then the long, slow, subtle process of indoctrination begins, using familiar words but, unbeknownst to the hearer, slightly or sometimes vastly different meanings. As br.d. defines so often and well, there is a very well-documented system that mind controllers of all sorts use to indoctrinate people. All of the common methods are applied, from fear of rejection, need for approval, appeals to authority and so many more; people are ‘worked’ until they become molded into compliant, model converts. Most never know what happened to them. The more ‘resistant’, those who continue to ask troublesome questions and challenge the pastor’s authority, are either run off or excommunicated on some trumped up charge.
I witnessed it innumerable times, and only too late, did I actually think to speak with the individuals themselves. In the cases in which I was later able to do so, the stories heard were vastly different from the ‘official’ stories we were given. People felt intimidated, threatened and often deeply traumatized. This is spiritual abuse, and it is being increasingly reported from those escaping authoritarian and mostly Calvinist churches.
Don’t take my word for it. Do a little online exploring. Find the testimonies and reports of former Calvinists all over the web, and those on spiritual abuse websites. When I first exited Calvinism, I thought perhaps it was just me, that it was all in my mind, or that it was unique to my particular pastor and/or church. Since then I have read many, many stories, and corresponded with individuals whose experiences were eerily similar to my own. You can charge me with making it all up, or misinterpreting the events. But you will have to do the same with a growing legion of individuals who attest to the same sort of experience.
Many, perhaps most, moderate Calvinist churches do not really, consistently hold to or teach the doctrines of Reformed Theology. Oh, they make claims to hold to the Westminster Confession, but few, perhaps even of their pastors, truly believe the harsh, cruel distinctives of genuine Calvinism. Perhaps, as FROMOVERHERE suggests, this renders much of Calvinism mostly harmless, as few truly internalize it. Others, like me, find that eventually, they are led into the more hardcore doctrines, after being softened up with the muted, compatibilist version.
This is why we speak up and tell our stories, painful as it is to relive them; it is our desire to warn and prevent others from suffering the damages we have seen to peoples’ faith, family and lives by a belief system that posits a cruel, harsh, tyrannical deity who pretends to be a god of mercy and love.
But I want to end with a good note. The beauty of it all, is that those who escape the dark, hopeless, destructive teachings of Calvinism often find themselves back in the sunshine of God’s glorious goodness, mercy and love. We find that once we cast off the Calvinist lenses, our bible becomes once again a messenger of love, peace and hope, beautiful tidings of comfort and joy for all who believe its promises. This is the good news of the true gospel that I desire for all to know.
ts00 writes, “that is indeed what my Calvinist pastor, for a long time, taught, which is why I was not able to distinguish between what I knew of Reformed Theology and the true gospel.”
Calvinism is faithful to the Scriptures and to the gospel. Calvinist doctrines are explained in books and articles easily available to all. If anyone doesn’t know what Calvinism teaches, it is because of laziness – or lack of interest.
TS00:
Per your personal testimony and God being “wholly good” part.
I came to the place —reading the Word— where I said something has to give.
1. I could continue down the party line saying that God ordained all the murder, rape, suicide…”for His glory.”
2. I could continue with the party definition of sovereignty (all that happens is what He wants).
3. I could continue with the party line of omniscience means knowing-means-ordaining…..and all things are known before they happen.
….but I could not then continue to say that He was “wholly good”.
From the witness that Christ brings to the earth….Him being what God illustrates about Himself…. there is no way to say that the deity represented in 1 an 2 and 3 is “wholly good.” No way. The ideas are incongruous.
You must redefine good (and how can we with Christ before our eyes?)….
or you must redefine “sovereignty” and “omniscience”.
Or—if you will —and your mind can take it—- you can say they are “compatible”.
But for me….. I could not say He is “wholly good” with 1,2, and 3 in place. He asks us to love (be good to) our neighbors and our enemies and yet He is nowhere near being “wholly good.” (with 1, 2, and 3 in place).
So….what will it be I asked? Re-define good or redefine sovereign and omniscient?
Well….the Bible is pretty clear on what “wholly good” is.
And as I discovered (being for the first time willing to wrestle with my faith) the Bible was a LOT less reformed on the issue of sovereignty and omniscience than I was taught.
I have posted dozens of times on how “The Sovereign Lord” says you did not do what I wanted….I did not expect you to do that…. I did not even think you would do that…. so it became pretty easy for me to see that God was going out of His way to make it clear that He is sovereign —- and by that in control to the level He wants— but Scripture teaches that He does not always get what He wants. Period. Clear. Easy to see in the Word.
Now, Brian has posted many times about omniscience and I am happy to see that a guy with his baptistic background has been willing to wrestle with what Scripture teaches about what God knows.
Basically you have two choices: (1) accept a non-reformed (yet biblical) definition of sovereignty and omniscience or (2) accept that a God who pretends “to be love” and “wholly good’ actually deceives us, and actually planned/ willed/ ordained/ delighted in all the heinous rape and torture that has happened since the world began.
Now, I dont bother responding to the silly posts that say: He planned it but He allowed it….He doesnt want it, but all that happens is what He wants…. God ordained everything to the letter…..yet He lets man do it of his own free will. This is nonsense.
Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.
That is the Sovereign Lord I serve: one that calls people to a choice, and has not proclaimed/ ordained that choice.
Amen. It seems that the Sovereign God led us to the same understanding of the choice he sets before us. I rejoice, not in thinking that you think just like me in all things – which I am sure you do not – but that you choose to trust in and follow the wholly good God that scripture presents to us.
The both of you are a testimony of the love of God!
We’ve all come from different places – but we’re all becoming one in him.
And they sang a new song, saying:
You have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
“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?” Ezekiel 18:21-22
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:16-18
“And he who sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” Rev 21:5-8
“The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price.” Rev. 22:17
There are no defining clauses to limit these, and like promises to a select few. Truly truly, all who believe in him will not be condemned.
ts00 writes, “There are no defining clauses to limit these, and like promises to a select few. Truly truly, all who believe in him will not be condemned.”
On this, Calvinism agrees.
TS00:
Per your Ezekiel verses …… “But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins”…. and the many hundreds or thousands of verses like it in the Bible, I have found that Calvinists are satisfied with a wave of the “dead man” wand. They dismiss all of these many, many verses with a “Yes, it says that ….and yes one would think it possible by a simple reading….but we know that a wicked man cannot turn from his sins.”
And of course they know these verses dont mean what they say because…… wait ………… wait for it…… they say so!
FOH writes:
That is the Sovereign Lord I serve: one that calls people to a choice, and has not proclaimed/ ordained that choice.
br.d
Yes! And he loved me before I knew him – and he’s filled me with his wonderful life! :-]
FOH writes, “That is the Sovereign Lord I serve: one that calls people to a choice,…”
Even Calvinism says this. “God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17)
Then, “…and has not proclaimed/ ordained that choice.”
brian has a convert. It was inevitable.
FOH writes, “Really? I mean these are educated men who are so entrenched in their presuppositions that they take a few half-verses, interpret them out of context (but with their end-goal in mind) and then act amazed that we do not “get it””
Yet, Amos seems so clear, “Does disaster come to a city unless the Lord has planned it?” It is a rhetorical question whose answer is, Yes. Correct??
Then, “And when we point to the thousands of things that happened in the Bible that God clearly says He did not want to happen….. we are told “it does not really mean that” or “God has two wills” .”
Surely you still remember what you heard in your Calvinist experience of old. There are certain things that God wants people to do, but God gives people the freedom to disobey Him – the commandments in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are examples. However, in the end, God’s will must be done as God is omnipotent and has the power to affect whatever outcome He wants and it is God who must, as sovereign, wield His power in one direction or the other. We have not two wills of God but one will expressed in different ways.
Several times Jonah has been mentioned in these comments. He had a choice. God turned up the heat…and Jonah could have said not still and been consumed in the fish.
We see this several time in my daily-reading Amos section.
In Amos 4 god gives this formula many times…..
“I brought hunger to every city
and famine to every town.
But still you would not return to me,”
says the Lord.
Does God persuade, cajole, bring pressure, judge? Yes.
Why? Disobedience. To bring people back. In Jonah’s case…to get him to go.
Over and over and over in Amos “The Sovereign Lord” says …..”but still you would not return to me.”
Just wait…..I predict we will get some silly response that says, “On this Calvinists agree.”
Baloney!
These endless number of passages in the Bible contradict Calvinism at its core.
These (thousands of) verses show that people’s disobedience is not what God wanted. To say that everything that happens in the world is what He wants/ plans/ intends simply makes a mockery of the “All of Scripture.”
These verses also show “The Sovereign Lord” saying in His eternal word ….”But still you did not return to me.”
When I am accused of “making man sovereign and not God” or “have a man-centered theology” I simply scratch my head. Do Calvinists not read these thousands of verses? Only the top 40-50 verses? Filter all other verses through Calvinist lenses? Oh…. I forgot….. I forgot to applied the Calvinist band-aid……
“These verses don’t mean what they say….”
FOH, it is Calvinists misleading ‘On this Calvinists agree’ that most disturbs me. Because many naive people don’t understand how they redefine words until they have no genuine meaning, or can mean whatever they want them to mean at the moment. They will play semantic games, like ‘This is the woman I am married to – but she is not my wife’ and they say it with such authority the listener is certain there must be some distinction between the two. Like those confronted with the naked Emperor, no one wants to be the only ignoramus who can’t see his glorious clothes; so they praise and admire their imaginary grandeur. ‘God ordains whatsoever comes to pass – but he is not the author of evil.’ There is simply, undeniably, no logical sense to two such contradictory statements, and I don’t care if a whole army of self-important Divines signed their names to them.
How crafty to assert that God must get all the glory because he is the one and only causative agent in the universe, yet deny that this means he must naturally also get all the blame for anything that is not so good. Meaningless, nonsense talk that leaves the confused listener too befuddled to think anymore. May God’s Spirit continue to move in people’s hearts and free them from false teaching that leads to a life of defeat and despair.
ts00 writes, “They will play semantic games, like ‘This is the woman I am married to – but she is not my wife’”
If your claims were true, you could use an actual example and not create one. Why don’t you advance the conversation and put out specific complaints?
Then, “How crafty to assert that God must get all the glory because he is the one and only causative agent in the universe, yet deny that this means he must naturally also get all the blame for anything that is not so good.”’
FOH has noted Amos 3 where it says, “If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?” God certainly takes responsibility for His actions. Amos further tells us, “The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but prophesy?” Amos prophecies disaster that God will bring on the countries around Israel, and even Israel, and it is tied to the wickedness. So, if disaster strikes a city, is God to be blamed or should those hit by the disaster recognize their wickedness and humble themselves before God?
Currently, there are wildfires in California. Has the governor or the other ruling officials called for the people to cry out to God for relief? They have not – but why not? Is it because they have no respect for God and do not seek to glorify Him? I think so. Thus, Amos tells us that the disaster being experienced by California is from God. You choose to blame God for such things rather than say that God is just to do such things – God has given you freedom to denigrate Him.
FOH writes, “Does God persuade, cajole, bring pressure, judge? Yes”
Yet, the people are NOT persuaded, NOT cajoled, NOT pressured while God waits and waits and waits and then God sends judgment.
And in your system, God is causing them to disobey while claiming he wants obedience. Don’t talk about choice when choice is meaningless in a system where no alternative choices exist.
A little further down today in Amos 5…
4 Now this is what the Lord says to the family of Israel:
“Come back to me and live!
5 Don’t worship at the pagan altars at Bethel…
6 Come back to the Lord and live!
Otherwise, he will roar through Israel like a fire,
devouring you completely…..
14 Do what is good and run from evil
so that you may live!
Then the Lord God of Heaven’s Armies will be your helper,
just as you have claimed.
———-
Do you see the beauty of this! The Sovereign Lord is calling his “chosen people” to “Come back to Him and live!!!”
Again and again.
But if you dont….”otherwise….He will roar…”
Don’t Baal worship…Do what is good…run from evil.
Why? So that you may live!
Then the Lord will be your helper.
Woah….imagine the Almighty God of Heaven called “our helper” (not our pre-ordaining determinist). [also notice that it says He will be our helper after we choose to do right].
Seems like the decision is in the hands and hearts of man….while God waits.
Just like the father waited for the wayward (prodigal) son in Luke 15.
Same Father. Same waiting. Same choice.
Do it! Choose for yourselves today to follow a calling Christ!
FOH writes, “Seems like the decision is in the hands and hearts of man….while God waits.”
…and waits, and waits, and waits…. Tired of waiting God sends the Assyrians to destroy Israel; later He will send the Babylonians to destroy Judah. Jesus said, “No man can come to me…” So, God waits, and waits, and waits,…
I am soaking this all up, but the enemy likes to jump in. I was confronted with Galatians where Paul says he was separated from the womb Please direct me to a youtube video where you discuss this. Thanks Grant Holland
Does proof that God chooses some for the purpose of preaching the Gospel proves that God also chooses every single individual that will be saved through preaching of that message?
THE DECEPTIVE NATURE OF “CHOICE” IN CALVINISM.
Calvinists are highly reliant upon masquerading “CHOICE” as Libertarian in nature, when they know it is not. This is done in order to obfuscate the sector of how their doctrine reduces human functionality to that of a puppet controlled/manipulated by supernatural immutable puppet strings.
This is deceptive strategy is how Calvinists can insist that humans have CHOICE in their system.
What they hide is aspects of their systems CHOICE that are different from what Christianity envisions.
The Oxford Handbook on Freewill explains the difference:
In the historical literature of Christian philosophy, concerning human freedom of the will, there are three key identifiers that distinguish between libertarian-will from predestined-will.
1) “up to usness”
2) “do otherwise”
3) “Alternate Possibilities” (sometimes all “open possibilities”)
These three characteristics distinguish Libertarian human will from predestined will
-quote:
From a personal or practical standpoint, we perceive ourselves as [Libertarian] free agents capable of influencing the world in various ways.
*OPEN ALTERNATIVES* seem to lie before us. We reason or deliberate among them and choose.
We feel it is *UP TO US* what we choose and how we act.
And this means that we *COULD HAVE CHOSEN or acted OTHERWISE*.
Or, as Aristotle succinctly put it, “When acting is UP TO US, so is not acting” (1915b: Hi3b6).
This “UP TO US-NESS” also suggests that the ORIGINS or SOURCES of our actions are in us and not in something else over which we have no control—whether that something else is fate or God, the laws of nature, birth or upbringing, or other humans.- end quote
In the case of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinist) humans exercise CHOICE.
But that CHOICE is NOT “up to us” – it is up to the THEOS
In the case of robotics, robots similarly exercise CHOICE.
But that CHOICE is NOT “up to” the robot – it is up to the designer.
The Calvinist response to this is to point out the humans are not robots.
But again, this is an evasion tactic.
One does not have to be a robot to have the same functionality of CHOICE.
br.d writes, “Calvinists are highly reliant upon masquerading “CHOICE” as Libertarian in nature, when they know it is not. ”
This is absolutely delusional. If this were correct, we would not have discussions about compatibilism nor would Calvinists be cited as denying libertarian free will.
Then, “This is deceptive strategy is how Calvinists can insist that humans have CHOICE in their system.”
One need only read Jonathan Edwards to see that Calvinists say choices are based on one’s desires. People have desires and make choices based on those desires.
br.d writes,
“Calvinists are highly reliant upon masquerading “CHOICE” as Libertarian in nature, when they know it is not. ”
rhutchin:
This is absolutely delusional. If this were correct, we would not have discussions about compatibilism nor would Calvinists be cited as denying libertarian free will.
br.d
Philosophers agree that Calvinism’s compatiblism masquerades CHOICE as Libertarian in nature as part of its embracing of compatiblism – in order to hide the sector of PREDESTINED CHOICE.
Immanuel Kant called compatiblism -quote “a wretched subterfuge” and “nothing more than word jugglery”.
William James y called compatiblism -quote “a quagmire of evasion – by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism”.
Both Kant and James describe what Christians at SOT101 observe in rhutchin’s posts.
So thanks rhutchin for providing great examples.
rhutchin
One need only read Jonathan Edwards to see that Calvinists say choices are based on one’s desires. People have desires and make choices based on those desires.
br.d
Again you’ve simply affirmed my point. 😀
Jonathon Edwards is noted among Christian Philosophers as holding to Theological Fatalism.
Dr. Alvin Plantinga shows where Edward’s arguments logically fail in “On Ockham’s Way Out” published in “The Journal of Faith and Philosophy”. William Lane Craig agrees – Edward’s logic is fallacious.
Kant and James put it beautifully Calvinism’s CHOICE is a “wretched subterfuge – and nothing more than word jugglery”.
Because it seeks to masquerade itself as Libertarian in nature but the use of obfuscating language tricks.
ABSOLUTELY! This describes the ruse of Calvinism, hiding it’s true assertions behind compatibilism in hopes of misleading those who would otherwise reject their fatalistic determinism. This sums up my beef with Calvinism. If they would just honestly admit what they assert, as Calvinism once historically did, at least people could make an honest choice. But then, Calvinism doesn’t believe in honest choices. 🙂
Fairly simple question:
Can man make a choice that God did not decree/ decide/ ordain immutably, unalterably, and unilaterally before time began?
I believe that the Scripture says yes.
Any Calvinists out there that want to say “yes” to this?
Please just be honest. Dont keep telling us that Calvinism teaches that man makes free choices. Answer that simple question.
A great question FOH!
Can man make a choice that God did not decree/ decide/ ordain immutably, unalterably, and unilaterally before time began?
Any Calvinists out there that want to say “yes” to this?
Please just be honest. Dont keep telling us that Calvinism teaches that man makes free choices. Answer that simple question.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin:
-quote:
“The Omniscience of God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions, which include our sins and failures as well as our successes”. -end quote Robert R. McLaughlin – The Doctrine of The Divine Decree
Paul Helm:
-quote:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF god”. -end quote
Hey, that means I can blame all my issues, sin and struggles on God, right? I honestly think that is behind much of what draws men to determinism. It relieves so much guilt, and allows nearly any and all sin, up to Luther’s thousands of fornications a day (ya think the guy had a problem?) and Calvin’s torture and murders!
I have already asked the simple question of whether I should preach on Sunday to the assembly, “Everything you did last week was exactly what God wanted you to do.”
I was told by our Calvinist friends “of course—and Amen! Amen! Amen!”
In that case, I just dont get the point of the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18.
“God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.”
According to Calvin-fatalism-determinism, he should have continued….”I am indeed exactly how you want me to be.”
But no. That man was not how God wanted him to be.
“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Calvinist ESV)
FOH writes, “According to Calvin-fatalism-determinism, he should have continued….”I am indeed exactly how you want me to be.””
He should say, “I am exactly what you foresaw me to be and it is exactly what I want to be.” His problem is that what he wants to be is not what the result God intended in the law. He has distorted the law in order to justify himself.
That is a kind of byproduct of that thinking.
Historically, there were legal cases held by the Greeks who, to a large degree embraced the predestination of various god’s – would say – murder one’s wives etc, and then argued a god had predestined it as their fate and they were therefore not the originator of the crime.
If it weren’t for the fact that the scriptures reject the conception that god is the SOURCE/ORIGINATION of sin – Calvinists would probably be following that Greek tradition more closely. But they do want to claim they are biblical. And that’s what produces their *AS-IF* think patterns. Calvin’s god is the SOURCE/ORIGINATION of everything including all sin and all evil. But the Calvinist in order to retain some parallel with that aspect of scripture must go about (As Elijah says) “halting between two opinions.
Calvin’s god is the SOURCE/ORIGINATOR of all sin *AS-IF* man is.
ts00 writes, “Hey, that means I can blame all my issues, sin and struggles on God, right?”
Not your sin – This is the issue Paul addresses in Romans 6, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?…Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”
However, you can “blame” your struggles on God for this is His providence toward you – “My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD, Or loathe His reproof, For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father, the son in whom he delights.” (Proverbs 3) and “All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.” (Hebrews 12)
Paul Helm:-quote:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF god”. -end quote
Greta quote. Everything is, and must be, under the direct control of God because God is sovereign.
rhutchin:
Paul Helm:-quote:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF god”. -end quote
Everything is, and must be, under the direct control of God because God is sovereign.
br.d
This is what ex-Calvinist Robin Phillips calls “ZERO-SUM” Theology
-quote:
Economists use the language of a “ZERO-SUM game” to describe a transaction in which one person’s gain is directly tied to another person’s loss. (i.e., INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL). The ancient Gnostics didn’t know about game theory, but they tended to treat god’s glory as if it was a zero-sum contest between god and creation. The glory of god, they seemed to think, could only be maintained by denigrating the created order, or at least denying that anything of spiritual value could be derived from the creation.
Consistent with this framework, in the Calvinist church we attended for five years……this is the zero-sum mentality which assumes that any role we play (even praying a prayer of consecration) must necessarily subtract from God’s portion of the pie. -end quote
So in the Calvinist’s mind it logically follows for a human to have a neurological impulse that originated from one’s self, would be to rob god of his sovereign right to design people to function as puppets.
br.d writes, ” in the Calvinist’s mind it logically follows for a human to have a neurological impulse that originated from one’s self, would be to rob god of his sovereign right to design people to function as puppets.”
Another delusion comment. Calvinist’s are with Christ on this point – “…out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man;…”
br.d writes,
” in the Calvinist’s mind it logically follows for a human to have a neurological impulse that originated from one’s self, would be to rob god of his sovereign right to design people to function as puppets.”
rhutchin
Another delusion comment. Calvinist’s are with Christ on this point – “…out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
br.d
This is an excellent example of Calvinist beguiling double-speak.
That verse only says “OUT OF” it doesn’t say where they originate.
It logically follows – in Calvinism Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES every sin – and as you have previously posted ACTUALIZES them in each person’s life.
In Calvinism all sins are FIRST-CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god millennia before man exists.
Therefore they ORIGINATE with Calvin’s god.
The way Calvinists get around this is by using beguiling double-talk.
br.d writes, “That verse only says “OUT OF” it doesn’t say where they originate.”
This is a translation issue. That sin comes out of the heart is the same as saying that sin originates in the heart. God’s prior knowledge of man’s sins does not cause those sins or cause the heart to conceive those sins.
br.d writes, “That verse only says “OUT OF” it doesn’t say where they originate.”
rhutchin:
This is a translation issue. That sin comes out of the heart is the same as saying that sin originates in the heart. God’s prior knowledge of man’s sins does not cause those sins or cause the heart to conceive those sins.
br.d
You’re wrong again. The Greek word “EK” means OUT OF.
You’re quoted scripture does not affirm Theological Determinism.
However, It is logically consistent with Theological Determinism – that everything has its ORIGIN in the DETERMINER – and in Calvinism that is the THEOS.
The fact that Calvinist insist a position having logical consequences they seek to deny – shows how intellectually bankrupt Calvinism is.
br.d writes, “You’re quoted scripture does not affirm Theological Determinism.”
It says nothing about Theological Determinism – neither affirming or disaffirming. Your introduction of Theological Determinism into the argument is misplaced.
FOH writes, “Can man make a choice that God did not decree/ decide/ ordain immutably, unalterably, and unilaterally before time began?
I believe that the Scripture says yes.”
As one who formerly identified with Calvinists, you know that Calvinists affirm that God is present whenever any person makes any choice and that God is omnipotent so that He can affect any person to choose as He wills. Now you reject these things to say, “I believe that the Scripture says yes.” So, now we know your points of disagreement with Calvinists.
Guys is there one verse of scripture that actually says that God loves the wicked?And how would you reconcile it with verses such as Ps 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight :thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
There are many that says he loves his own.
Ironic you have chosen a pen name Grace…..when your point is to prove that God does not love…..99.85% of humanity. the same humanity that is created in His image. Some of whom who are no doubt infant-baptized by reformed-believers—-yet not loved by God.
Pick a new pen-name. Something beside “Grace”. Maybe …..Retribution.
“Grace” – Did Jesus “love” the rich young ruler who went away in unbelief? Did He have compassion on the multitude that He saw as sheep without a shepherd? Did He express love for the “wicked hands” that crucified Him.
Romans 10:21 NKJV — But to Israel he says:“All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.”
And Grace….he told the multitude on the hillside (surely not all believers in the thousands there)….seek and you will find….knock and it will be answer. Store up treasures for yourself in heaven. Seek first the kingdom!
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
He loved…..called….pleaded. they didnt want to. But His call…pleading was real….not insincere.
No one gains anything (except fulfilling an prescribed agenda) in declaring that the message of the Bible is that God does NOT love His creation (only loves His own). Oh…..but He loved .015% of them!! Grace!! Grace !! Good news!!!
brianwagner writes, “Did Jesus “love” the rich young ruler who went away in unbelief?”
“Then Jesus beholding him loved him,…” Mark 10
We might also add Romans 5, “God commended his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
Grace:
Guys is there one verse of scripture that actually says that God loves the wicked?And how would you reconcile it with verses such as Ps 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight :thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
There are many that says he loves his own.
br.d
From a Calvinist perspective it works this way:
Calvin’s god, at the foundation of the world – determines which persons he will design as “vessels of wrath” – whom he will hate and call wicked, vs. which persons he will design as “vessels of honor” – whom he will love and call his own.
The question might be asked – is that a logical lens through which to interpret scripture or is it double-think?
Grace asked, “Guys is there one verse of scripture that actually says that God loves the wicked?
br.d responded, “From a Calvinist perspective…”
In other words, br.d is not aware of any verse where God says He loves the wicked. However, we can point to John 3:16 where we read, “God so loved the world…” This might normally include the wicked (I take “world” to mean “Jew and gentile” here) but not necessarily. This may be why AW Pink argued that “world” refers to the elect. This would be different than Romans where Paul writes, “God demonstrated His love for us (His elect)…” We might distinguish between God’s general love for people as a group and His specific love for His elect individually.
Grace asked, “Guys is there one verse of scripture that actually says that God loves the wicked?
rhutchin writes
br.d responded, “From a Calvinist perspective…” In other words, br.d is not aware of [insert double-speak here]
br.d
br.d simply wrote what is true from a Calvinist’s perspective.
But br.d is also very aware of Calvinism’s double-speak. 😉
“br.d simply wrote what is true from a Calvinist’s perspective.”
And affirming that he knows of no Scripture that responds to Grace’s request (his focus on Calvinism being a strawman).
“br.d simply wrote what is true from a Calvinist’s perspective.”
rhutchin responds
And affirming that he knows of no Scripture that responds to Grace’s request (his focus on Calvinism being a strawman).
br.d
Fallacy of defective induction: An argument that jumps to a conclusion without facts sufficient to support it.
Otherwise known as child think. :-]
Grace, if you go back and read your bible, you will discover verse after verse declaring God’s love for ‘all men’, ‘the world’, etc. Whereas Calvinism asserts that some men were predetermined by God to have ‘wicked’, depraved hearts and perform ‘wicked’ deeds, Romans 1 and elsewhere describes the reality of the situation, in which men resist and reject God’s call and grow increasingly depraved. (If one was born ‘Totally Depraved’ Romans’ description of men growing increasingly wicked would be nonsense.) Such persons who refuse to respond to God’s offer of grace and submit themselves to the leading of his Spirit will indeed grow ‘wicked’ and eventually face the wrath of God.
This scriptural depiction of the wicked, how and why they choose darkness over light, is the opposite of what Calvinism asserts, being that God cursed all men with ‘Total Depravity’ due to the sin of their father (Adam), arbitrarily chose some to regenerate, redeem and grant everlasting life, while leaving the rest in their cursed, depraved state to suffer eternal punishment. If one accepts Calvinism, one must grant that ‘the wicked’ exist because God determined and irresistibly brought to pass their wicked deeds; thus, judging whether he ‘loves’ them or not is mere semantics. If you call deliberately creating men with the inescapable fate of hell ‘loving’ them, I guess you could attempt to make your case. The rejection of this depiction of God has existed since Augustine and Calvin first proposed it, and has continued strongly to this day. The resurgence of Calvinism, packaged in the ‘kinder, gentler’ ‘Doctrines of Grace’ seeks to conceal the ugly but undeniable underbelly of classical Calvinism/Reformed Theology. Exposing the truth is what this blog is all about.
ts00 writes, “(If one was born ‘Totally Depraved’ Romans’ description of men growing increasingly wicked would be nonsense.) ”
People are born totally depraved and not utterly depraved. It means that people desire sin and despise God. Plenty of room for people to become more wicked.
ts00
“(If one was born ‘Totally Depraved’ Romans’ description of men growing increasingly wicked would be nonsense.) ”
rhutchin
People are born totally depraved and not utterly depraved. It means that people desire sin and despise God. Plenty of room for people to become more wicked.
br.d
Here is a good example of how Calvinist play shell-games with terms like “totally” and “utterly”.
The strategy here is to be able to manipulate the meanings of specific terms – to mean [A] one minute and [NOT A] the next.
He who manipulates the meanings of terms wins by virtue of goal-post shifting.
This is why Christians observe Calvinism has a large library of rhetorical masks.
Welcome to the Calvinist world of double-speak. :-]
Yeah, I’ve experienced Rhutchin’s shell game on this one before – not biting. 🙂
br.d writes, “Here is a good example of how Calvinist play shell-games with terms like “totally” and “utterly”.”
This seems to reflect a misunderstanding on your part of the doctrine of Total Depravity. Total Depravity refers to the nature of the person and not how much sin they commit. The Totally Depraved person is described as “indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath.” They are “hostile toward God; not subjecting themselves to the law of God, and are not even able to do so; they cannot please God.” They reject God and His salvation. They seek to sin, but never are able to sin to the uttermost being constrained by social convention, peer pressure, law enforcement activities, threat of punishment, etc.
ts00
If one was born ‘Totally Depraved’ Romans’ description of men growing increasingly wicked would be nonsense.
rhutchin:
People are born totally depraved and not utterly depraved. It means that people desire sin and despise God. Plenty of room for people to become more wicked.
br.d
Here is a good example of how Calvinist play shell-games with terms like “totally” and “utterly”.
The strategy here is to be able to manipulate the meanings of specific terms – to mean [A] one minute and [NOT A] the next.
He who manipulates the meanings of terms wins by virtue of goal-post shifting.
This is why Christians observe Calvinism has a large library of rhetorical masks.
Welcome to the Calvinist world of double-speak. :-]
rhutchin
This seems to reflect a misunderstanding on your part of the doctrine of Total Depravity…….etc..etc
br.d
AS-IF!
Whats not to understand about Calvinist word games.
If Bill Clinton were a professing Christian he’d surely be a Calvinist. 😀
CALVINISM’S APPEAL TO HUMAN CHOICE
Ex-Calvinist Robin Phillips writes on this:
-quote:
One Calvinist professor I had (who is actually considered a moderate) went so far as to assert that I don’t even have free will when it comes to deciding whether to have honey or raspberry jam on my toast in the morning, because whichever choice I make results from God’s prior will-act in making the choice for me. There is no *REAL* synergy between the divine and the human, for God remains the only ONE TRUE agent that is working.
1) Notice there is only ONE TRUE agent at work in this Calvinist Professor’s mind. William Lane Craig agrees that this is logically consistent in Calvinism. And that in Calvinism humans do not have TRUE agency – but rather function as instruments, in the same way a stick is used as an instrument to move a rock.
2) Notice the terms REAL, and TRUE, in this Calvinist professor’s statement. These refer to the “PERCEPTION that people have, that their choices SEEM to be “up to them” rather than up to an external intelligence moving every thought in their brains throughout their lives. Many Calvinisits are not willing to be this honest but they do interpret the SENSE that they have libertarian freedom of choice as some kind of god induced deception. They may not know why their god would want to induce such a deception into their minds. But they appear to be comfortable interpreting it as such. But not willing to enunciate that to outsiders – for obvious reasons.
br.d writes, “Notice the terms REAL, and TRUE, in this Calvinist professor’s statement. These refer to the “PERCEPTION that people have, that their choices SEEM to be “up to them” rather than up to an external intelligence moving every thought in their brains throughout their lives.”
This guy needs to read Jonathan Edwards on free will. Man was made in the image of God having the ability to gather information, process that information, and reason based on that information. Add to this a sin nature inherited from Adam, and people are capable fully of wants and desires giving way to actions and all without God having to prompt them or move them to think or do such things. Thus, we read in Proverbs, “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD, it will stand.” and “The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.” and “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
There, “Many Calvinisits are not willing to be this honest but they do interpret the SENSE that they have libertarian freedom of choice as some kind of god induced deception.”
This is wrong. Calvinists deny that people have LFW but that they are controlled by their nature and enslaved to sin. That this is the condition of people is presented clearly in the Scriptures – there is no deception.
Then, ” But not willing to enunciate that to outsiders – for obvious reasons.”
The point is clearly enunciated in the Calvinist writings. Read a little Sproul, as an example.
br.d writes, “Notice the terms REAL, and TRUE, in this Calvinist professor’s statement. These refer to the “PERCEPTION that people have, that their choices SEEM to be “up to them” rather than up to an external intelligence moving every thought in their brains throughout their lives.”
rhutchin:
This guy needs to read Jonathan Edwards on free will…..etc
br.d
Here the Calvinst gives us another example of the dishonesty that started this thread.
We already know how to see through this Calvinist dishonesty.
Man is *ONLY* free to think/choose/desire/etc what Calvin’s god determines and NOT free to think/choose/desire otherwise.
If Calvinists were honest – they would communicate it that way rather than trying to masquerade it as libertarian in nature.
rhutch:
they are controlled by their nature and enslaved to sin. That this is the condition of people is presented clearly in the Scriptures – there is no deception.
br.d
Another good example of Calvinist half-truths.
In Calvinism their nature is CONTROLLED by god
Paul Helm:
-quote:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF god”. -end quote
rhutchin
December 12, 2017 at 11:45 am
Great quote. Everything is, and must be, under the DIRECT CONTROL of God…etc.
br.d
If the Calvinist were fully honest here, he would say EVERY SINFUL DESIRE is under the DIRECT CONTROL of Calvin’s god who is its SOURCE.
But you won’t find many Calvinists willing to be that honest.
br.d
I have posed the question flat out…. “Am I to preach on Sunday to the assembly —–‘Everything you did last week was exactly what God wanted, ordained, planned?'”
To this we heard a resounding “Of course…Amen!Amen! Amen!”
Well, they dont like to say “God planned/ willed/ ordained / wants/ delights in… all your sins” since that is such an in-your-face (but consistent!) comment. But that is really what they say when they say Amen! to that.
FOH writes, “they dont like to say “God planned/ willed/ ordained / wants/ delights in… all your sins” since that is such an in-your-face (but consistent!) comment. But that is really what they say when they say Amen! to that.”
God does not ordain anything outside the counsel of His will. Thus, God ordains sin because it is part of His purpose/will. Otherwise, He would take action to enforce His will. God is sovereign; He does nothing except to execute His plan conceived in eternity past and everything He does – whether to prevent sin or to let sin proceed – is according to the counsel of His will incorporating His perfect understanding of all things and His perfect wisdom.
rhutchin writes:
God ordains sin because it is part of His purpose/will.
br.d
Notice how he uses the word ORDAIN here.
This is called “Distancing Language”.
1) Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES of all sin millennia before man’s existence.
2) This is not a process of simply OBSERVING it occurring in the future
3) This is a process of ORIGINATING all sin and then ACTUALIZING it in the future.
Thus it follows Calvin’s god is the ORIGINATOR/AUTHOR of all sin
And people are nothing more than instruments upon which a melody of sin is played.
br.d writes, “2) This is not a process of simply OBSERVING it occurring in the future
3) This is a process of ORIGINATING all sin and then ACTUALIZING it in the future.”
This is wrong. God has a perfect understanding of all things and works all things after the counsel of His will. All things encompasses all sin. The origination and actualization of sin in man was accomplished by Adam/Eve under the influence of Satan without God doing anything other than opening the gate for Satan to enter the garden.
br.d writes,
“2) This is not a process of simply OBSERVING it occurring in the future
3) This is a process of ORIGINATING all sin and then ACTUALIZING it in the future.”
rhutchin
This is wrong. God has a perfect understanding of all things and works all things after the counsel of His will. All things encompasses all sin. The origination and actualization of sin in man was accomplished by Adam/Eve
br.d.
This is another great example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-speak.
In order to be logically consistent here rhutchin has to assert that god’s knowledge of Adam/Eve’s sin is by OBSERVING it.
It is logically consistent with Theological Determinism and all academic literature on the subject agrees that in the determinist model, sin along with everything else ORIGINATES where it is first DETERMINED.
Thus it logically follows in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all sin ORIGINATES in the mind of Calvin’s god millennia before man exists. Again, Calvin’s god doesn’t OBSERVE sin in the future – he FIRST-CONCEIVES it.
The way the Calvinist gets around this is by asserting Theological Determinism and denying its logical entailments.
br.d writes, “This is another great example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-speak. In order to be logically consistent here rhutchin has to assert that god’s knowledge of Adam/Eve’s sin is by OBSERVING it.”
You don’t seem to understand the conversation to this point. God knows all things in eternity past. While God does actually observe Adam and Eve in time, God does so already knowing what will transpire. God knows Eve’s heart and why she eats the fruit – God does not cause, or otherwise influence, Eve to eat the fruit. Same with Adam. Once Adam eats the fruit, he incurs a corruption that God decrees be inherited by his progeny. The origination and actualization of sin in Adam’s progeny is traced to Adam/Eve.
rhutchin:
While [Calvin’s] god knows everything that will happen in time [Calvin’s] god does not cause, or otherwise influence.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin for an absolutely direct rejection of Calvinism’s doctrine of Foreknowledge and Theological Determinism.
Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth reveals your dishonesty:
-quote:
Paul Kjoss Helseth representing the Reformed tradition, argues that all events owe both their occurend and the precise mode of that occurance to god, who *CAUSES* EVERY CREATURELY ACT in such a way as to DETERMINE COMPLETELY its nature and outcome. – page 282
I think at this point its becoming obvious rhutchin is operating in what I would call “Altruistic dishonesty”.
br.d writes, “Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth reveals your dishonesty:
-quote:
Paul Kjoss Helseth representing the Reformed tradition, argues that all events owe both their occurend and the precise mode of that occurance to god, who *CAUSES* EVERY CREATURELY ACT in such a way as to DETERMINE COMPLETELY its nature and outcome. – page 282”
Reformed tradition, and surely Paul Kjoss Helseth, hold that God works through secondary causes toward the end that God is said to work all things after the counsel of His will. In saying that God “*CAUSES* EVERY CREATURELY ACT,” Helseth does not mean to suggest that God is the immediate cause of every creaturely act but only that God is in control of every creaturely act and can affect such acts through direct and indirect means, as necessary, to accomplish His will. I don’t think you understand the reformed position as it relates to secondary causes. Ignorance on your part negates dishonesty on my part.
br.d writes, “Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth reveals your dishonesty:
-quote:
Paul Kjoss Helseth representing the Reformed tradition, argues that all events owe both their occurend and the precise mode of that occurance to god, who *CAUSES* EVERY CREATURELY ACT in such a way as to DETERMINE COMPLETELY its nature and outcome. – page 282”
rhutchin
Reformed tradition, and surely Paul Kjoss Helseth, hold that God works through secondary causes
br.d
First you claim Calvin’s god does not cause sins – I provide a quote from Helsth that states he CAUSES EVERY CREATUERLY ACT and now you punt to secondary causes *AS-IF* Calvin’s god is not the PRIMARY CAUSE.
Your providing excellent examples of Calvinism’s beguiling double-speak
At this point its obvious I’m chasing a greased pig. 😀
br.d writes, “First you claim Calvin’s god does not cause sins – I provide a quote from Helsth that states he CAUSES EVERY CREATUERLY ACT and now you punt to secondary causes *AS-IF* Calvin’s god is not the PRIMARY CAUSE.”
No Calvinist says that God is the primary, or immediate cause of all things. All Calvinist say that God is the cause of all things in that He is omnipotent and has the power to prevent anything He does not want to happen.
br.d writes,
“First you claim Calvin’s god does not cause sins – I provide a quote from Helsth that states he CAUSES EVERY CREATURELY ACT and now you punt to secondary causes *AS-IF* Calvin’s god is not the PRIMARY CAUSE.”
rhutchin:
No Calvinist says that God is the primary, or immediate cause of all things. All Calvinist say that God is the cause of all things in that He is omnipotent and has the power to prevent anything He does not want to happen.
br.d
This is a great example of Calvinist double-speak
Notice how it focuses on “What the Calvinist says” rather than what is logically entailed in Calvinism.
This is called the SIN OF OMISSION
The Calvinist appeals to “secondary causes” and then quietly OMITS the PRIMARY CAUSE which logically follows from his doctrine.
The way the Calvinist does this is simply by stating “No Calvinist *SAYS* Calvin’s god is the PRIMARY Cause”
Right! Calvinists are not intellectually honest enough to do so.
However, the number 2 always follows the number one.
A SECONDARY cause logically follows a PRIMARY cause.
What the Calvinist will do this this is continue to insert ad-hoc causes in front of the secondary cause and call it the primary cause, in order to evade following the chains of causation to its ORIGIN.
Thus we see another example of Calvinism’s dishonesty.
Rhutchin writes: “Once Adam eats the fruit, he incurs a corruption that God decrees be inherited by his progeny. The origination and actualization of sin in Adam’s progeny is traced to Adam/Eve.”
Wow, what a mouthful. Does this guy talk like this at home? ‘Once I looked away, I incurred a corruption of my once pristine instrument, which my sovereign insurance provider decreed would be inherited unfailingly by my bank account. The origination and actualization of the increase in my insurance rates, that would be suffered by my progeny through an unavoidable decrease in expendable income, is tracable to my freely chosen action.’
Translation of the latter: “I just glanced at my phone for one second, and ran into a guy. My insurance rate just doubled.’
Translation of the former: “Adam sinned, and God cruelly punished all who would ever be born for their ‘father’s’ crime, cursing them with an inborn guilt and propensity for wrongdoing before they are ever born.”
To try and cover this nonsense up with euphemisms and needlessly lengthy words is to attempt to hide the fact that Calvinists are asserting that God unjustly punishes all men ever born for a crime they did not commit.
Calvinistic Total Depravity – the root of Divine Determinism – is the biggest, ugliest lie ever conceived by false teachers, and falsely accuses God of cruelty and injustice. Utterly contrary to God’s actual words delivered through his chosen prophet Ezekiel concerning who is held accountable for what, Satan’s false prophets Augustine and Calvin assert that God is a harsh, cruel tyrant who uses his undeniable power and unchallengable authority to unjustly ordain punishment for those from whom he has cruelly eliminated the possibility of pleasing him by endowing them with an inability to not sin.
Okay, that almost sounds like the Calvinists. In simple words, we are all going to hell in a handbasket because God wants it that way. Get over it.
Whatever it is these revered, Calvinist theologians want to say happened with Adam – I’ll let them fight it out amongst themselves – they all agree that from that point on, man is toast. Because God decreed that man would be toast. Okay, maybe Adam really ticked him off, but it still seems a little harsh to condemn all of future mankind because one guy blew it. But just because he’s not ALL bad, he decided to spare a few random specimens, and bestow undeserved favor upon them, just as he intends to bestow undeserved punishment on the rest. And if you don’t like it, it’s because you are not ‘elect’, have not been given an ‘elect’ mind and don’t understand God’s obviously glorious intentions in ordaining and bringing to pass all of the heinous evil that has befallen mankind since Adam first gave God the finger. It’s good if God says it’s good, and who is going to challenge him?
Oh, the fools that think man actually declared mutiny and brought all of this destruction upon themselves. Silly, silly unregenerate idiots, who think someone other than God could possibly dream up rape, torture, incest, murder, oppression and genocide. What idiocy, to think that God would die for willful rebels while they were yet thumbing their noses at him, rather than understanding that he was pulling their strings all along.
And all the rest . . .
Yes you are absolutely correct!!
Most Calvinists simply cannot be honest when enunciating their own belief system.
They always seek to hide its dark-side using language tricks.
br.d writes, “Most Calvinists simply cannot be honest when enunciating their own belief system.”
Ignorance regarding one’s own beliefs and the inability to properly enunciate those beliefs is a problem in all religions second only to ignorance of other’s beliefs. It is an unintended dishonesty.
br.d. writes: “Most Calvinists simply cannot be honest when enunciating their own belief system.
They always seek to hide its dark-side using language tricks.”
May I offer one caveat? I do believe that there is a distinction between those who have studied, and fully understand the full ramifications of Calvinism, but seek to obfuscate them in order to not frighten away potential converts, and the befuddled, indoctrinated pew-warmer who merely mouths the script he has memorized. The former know the truth, and seek to hide it by deceptive, confusing, contradictory doublespeak that leaves the latter hopelessly unable to perceive what is being said, so shrugs and just lives like what the bible actually says is true. Thus, the vast majority of lay Calvinists have no idea what consistent Calvinism must assert to maintain its system, and naively considers his own biblical interpretations to be what ‘Calvinism’ teaches. While happily distracted, the naive layperson is subtly, subconsciously indoctrinated into the more controversial interpretations under the false assumption that they are, after all, what the bible teaches.
Good point Truthseeker.
Which camp would you put MacArthur and Piper?
ts00 writes, “I do believe that there is a distinction between those who have studied, and fully understand the full ramifications of Calvinism, but seek to obfuscate them in order to not frighten away potential converts, and the befuddled, indoctrinated pew-warmer who merely mouths the script he has memorized.”
That is because it is easy to give people milk and difficult to give them solid food. The Scriptures recognize this problem.
“I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. ” (1 Corinthians 3)
“though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” (Hebrews 5)
br.d writes, “If Calvinists were honest – they would communicate it that way rather than trying to masquerade it as libertarian in nature.”
Calvinists never present it as libertarian but as the product of one’s desires. That which a person desires is that which he seeks.
Then, “If the Calvinist were fully honest here, he would say EVERY SINFUL DESIRE is under the DIRECT CONTROL of Calvin’s god who is its SOURCE.”
This is wrong. It is true that every sinful desire is under the control of God for God knows our thoughts even before we think them and in the Proverbs, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
God made man in his image with his own thoughts so that God does not have to give him thoughts to think but man is to train himself to think the thoughts of God telling us in Romans, “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.”
br.d writes, “If Calvinists were honest – they would communicate it that way rather than trying to masquerade it as libertarian in nature.”
rhutchin
Calvinists never present it as libertarian but as the product of one’s desires. That which a person desires is that which he seeks.
br.d
We’re all familiar with this tactic of *AS-IF* thinking.
The person desires sin *AS-IF* the Calvin’s god didn’t specifically determine the person to desire sin AND the person cannot do otherwise.
br.d
Then, “If the Calvinist were fully honest here, he would say EVERY SINFUL DESIRE is under the DIRECT CONTROL of Calvin’s god who is its SOURCE.”
rhutchin:
This is wrong. It is true that every sinful desire is under the control of God for God knows our thoughts even before we think them and in the Proverbs, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
br.d
This is a good example of Calvinsts beguiling double-talk.
Here the Calvinist appeals to “God knowledge” of out thoughts etc: *AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t determine those thoughts such that we cannot do otherwise.
rhutchin
God made man in his image with his own thoughts so that God does not have to give him thoughts to think but man is to train himself to think the thoughts of God telling us in Romans, “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.”
br.d
Calvinists will always do 2 things.
1) Make grandiose assertions to *UNIVERSAL* divine causal determinism of *ALL* things
2) Deny the universality of their assertion in some category – but just temporarily in order to obfuscate its logical entailments.
Thank you rhutchin for providing examples of Calvinist dishonesty.
I think by removing some of the Calvinist’s loopholes – we can go a little further with this
First we need to define the scope of “Decree” such that it cannot be equivocated upon.
Calvinists equivocate on the scope of “Decree”.
When in boasting mode asserting it as “Universal” in scope and directly involved in every event without exception.
When in defense mode asserting it as not directly involved in “Particular” events
NOTE: Here “DECREE” can be singular or plural and is defined as:
Anything and everything having to do with Adam AND anything and everything having to do with (divine or otherwise) secondary means having to do with Adam.
br.d – December 15, 2017 at 4:44 pm
CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
Rhutchin – December 16, 2017 at 7:08 am
True
br.d – December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
Rhutchin – December 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
True.
br.d – December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
And
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS.
Rhutchin – December 16, 2017 at 12:03 pm
True.
br.d – December 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm
Ok lets continue…..
Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
AND
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
AND
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS
It logically follows
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Partially true. God’s decree was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
br.d
OK let’s modify (4) then
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
AND
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
AND
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS
AND
4) CALVIN’S GOD’S DECREE IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS
(Note: this is based upon rhutchin’s acknowledgement above)
It then logically follows
5) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – WHICH WAS THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS
As stated above: Here “DECREE” is defined as:
Anything and everything having to do with Adam AND anything and everything having to do with (divine or otherwise) secondary means having to do with Adam.
br.d writes, “Calvinists equivocate on the scope of “Decree”.
When in boasting mode asserting it as “Universal” in scope and directly involved in every event without exception.
When in defense mode asserting it as not directly involved in “Particular” events ”
As is normally the case, br.d imagines much but has no real examples to put before the reader. So sad!
rhutchin writes
As is normally the case, br.d imagines much but has no real examples to put before the reader. So sad!
br.d
So consistent – reverse attribution error. 😀
rhutchin writes, “As is normally the case, br.d imagines much but has no real examples to put before the reader. So sad!”
br.d – “So consistent – reverse attribution error.’
br.d could easily to provide an example – if he had one.
rhutchin writes, “As is normally the case, br.d imagines much but has no real examples to put before the reader. So sad!”
br.d – “So consistent – reverse attribution error.’
br.d could easily to provide an example – if he had one.
br.d
To funny! Look in your own posts! 😀
I never have to provide examples – yours are always more than sufficient!
br.d writes, “5) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – WHICH WAS THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS”
br.d is still pushing a cause and effect that is not supported in the preceding statements.
Let’s help br.d (because he really needs help).
5) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS in part BECAUSE GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – WHICH WAS THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – and would then provide for God to execute that decree to affect Adam’s obedience.”
Then, “As stated above: Here “DECREE” is defined as:
Anything and everything having to do with Adam AND anything and everything having to do with (divine or otherwise) secondary means having to do with Adam.”
primary and secondary means.
Thanks for that quote.
And Calvinists either (1) affirm/ love that idea (honest ones), (2) affirm/ accept that idea (compatibalism; a pill to sleep well), (3) affirm/ deny that idea (heading off into all kinds of rocking horse escapades).
I just read the Bible where God Himself if giving man choice thousands of times.
Hey what about that one right in front of eyes where God gives David the choice of 3 punishments. Then God does the one David picks. Awfully deceptive of God if there is no real (unforced/ uncoerced) choice involved. I mean, what’s the point anyway if that is true?
Or how about when God told Abraham that he was going to destroy Sodom? Was he merely toying with him when he promised that if fifty, no forty-five, no forty . . . all the way down to ten righteous men could be found in Sodom he would not destroy the city? I can say with some degree of certainty that if we were to list all of the incidences in scripture in which man was offered and made choices, or in which God responded to the pleas of men to change his expressed plan, this thread would get interminably long. When I set out to do that very thing a few years back, the ‘page’ I set aside in my notebook was filled before I got to Deuteronomy. That was when I laughingly admitted to myself that Calvinism’s claim that man had no ‘genuine’ free will or influence on actual events was not only arguable, but absurd.
TS00
Of course you will see blustering efforts made in these page about how Jonathan Edwards believed in free choice.
Baloney!
This is the same old “I am married to a woman who is not my wife” thing … or “God gives man free choice to do the things He has immutably, irrevocably, unstoppably, ordained in advance.”
Take that pill. If it helps you sleep. Whatever.
For me it makes all the human decisions made in the Bible (and there is only so much ink on parchment that God left us!!) wasted space.
What a deceptive God that makes.
FOH writes, “you will see blustering efforts made in these page about how Jonathan Edwards believed in free choice. Baloney! ”
Edwards said that people are free when they are free to choose consistent with their desires. What is wrong with calling that “free choice”?
rhutchin
Edwards said that people are free when they are free to choose consistent with their desires. What is wrong with calling that “free choice”?
br.d
From a standpoint of Christ-like ethics, nothing is wrong with it – *IF* the Calvinist is COMPLETELY honest in communicating what he really means by it. Namely one is *ONLY* FREE to desire what Calvin’s god determines one to desire – and *NOT* FREE to think/choose/desire anything otherwise.
From a standpoint of Christ-like ethics, what is wrong – is how consistently Calvinists strategically hide those unpalatable aspects of their doctrine’s conception of FREE – and instead use beguiling language to make their FREE masquerade as libertarian in nature, when they know it isn’t.
That’s why Calvinist language is called “beguiling double-talk”.
br.d writes, ” Namely one is *ONLY* FREE to desire what Calvin’s god determines one to desire – and *NOT* FREE to think/choose/desire anything otherwise.”
Again Calvinists are with Christ on this – In John 6, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” The corruption of Adam’s sin denies to people any libertarian free will to choose Christ. It is only by the drawing of people by God that people gain any freedom from the corruption of Adam’s sin and thereby freedom to choose Christ.
br.d
Not sure why you keep at it when R keeps moving the goal posts on you and quoting the same 5 verses over and over (which of course have alternate interpretations). They never answer all the thousands of verses about “If you will, I will” “I did not want you to do that” “I did not plan for you to do that.”
And of course you are talking about ANY choice (which socks to wear? date that girl or not? kiss that girl or not? fight on the side of the North or South, fight in Hitler’s army or not) and somehow it (for them) is always about whether man can choose Christ or not.
There are zillions of other choices to be made in life (eat ham or not, drink wine or not, which version of the Bible, get inked or not, pierce an ear or not, eat another piece of cheesecake or not)…… what about those choices?
Did God “for His glory” ‘necessarily’ make all those too. Why yes you ungrateful puppet!
I say to a grown kid that it is not my preference that he get a nose piercing….but he is free to do so. He comes home with one. I say, “Hey is that white gold or silver?”
He says….”Dad, I got this nose ring cuz God foreordained it from before time.”
Well I guess so!!!
So what good is my opinion / counsel/ help/ wisdom anyway if everything that he does he can say “God ordained it …Amen! Amen! Amen!”?
I know – I’ll stop responding to his beguiling double-talk at this point.
He’s starting to chase his own tail again.
FOH writes, “Not sure why you keep at it when R keeps moving the goal posts on you and quoting the same 5 verses over and over”
I will be able to use those verses until you, or someone else, come up with viable alternate interpretations that you are not embarrassed to defend.
br.d writes, ”
In Calvinism one is *ONLY* FREE to desire what Calvin’s god determines one to desire – and *NOT* FREE to think/choose/desire anything otherwise.”
rhutchin
Again Calvinists are with Christ on this – In John 6,…etc
br.d
What I posted is logically consistent with Theological Determinism/compatiblism.
You appeal to a scripture which is not logically consistent with Determinism/compatibilsm.
Thank you for providing a good example of Calvinist trying to masquerade compatibilist freedom of will as Libertarian in nature.
br.d writes, “You appeal to a scripture which is not logically consistent with Determinism/compatibilsm.”
Since Calvinists make their doctrines dependent on the Scriptures, it would be erroneous to identify them with Determinism/compatibilsm assuming you know what you are talking about.
br.d writes, “You appeal to a scripture which is not logically consistent with Determinism/compatibilsm.”
rhutchin
Since Calvinists make their doctrines dependent on the Scriptures, it would be erroneous to identify them with Determinism/compatibilsm assuming you know what you are talking about.
br.d
Thanks rhutchin for another example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-talk
James N. Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary provides the answer:
– “It should be conceded at the outset, and without any embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed divine determinism…it can be amply documented from representative Calvinist sources…simply take it for granted as something upon which the vast majority of Calvinists agree……Furthermore, if the Reformed tradition affirms that some human choices are free (which it does) then the Reformed tradition is committed to a compatibilist view of free will.”- end quote
br.d writes, “James N. Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary provides the answer:”
In that case, we conclude that you do not know what you are talking about in saying “You appeal to a scripture which is not logically consistent with Determinism/compatibilsm.”
br.d
December 12, 2017 at 1:158 pm
You appeal to a scripture which is not logically consistent with Determinism/compatibilsm.”
rhutchin
December 12, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Since Calvinists make their doctrines dependent on the Scriptures, it would be erroneous to identify them with Determinism/compatibilsm assuming you know what you are talking about.
br.d provides quote from James N. Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary – Calvinism committed to Determinism/Compatibilism
rhutchin
December 12, 2017 at 2:23 pm
In that case, we conclude that you do not know what you are talking about in saying “You appeal to a scripture which is not logically consistent with Determinism/compatibilsm.”
br.d
Great example of beguiling double-talk – thanks for a good one rhutchin.
I knew you could do it!! 😛
ts00 writes, “I can say with some degree of certainty that if we were to list all of the incidences in scripture in which man was offered and made choices, or in which God responded to the pleas of men to change his expressed plan, this thread would get interminably long.”
Calvinists agree. Calvinists add that God had specific knowledge of all this when He created the world. God can tell Abraham that He will destroy Sodom, etc, and then Abraham can bargain with God, and God can still have known that this would happen when He created the world (and even in eternity past). For the Molinist, this was the world that God chose to create and that world is now playing out exactly as God saw it. .
Then, “That was when I laughingly admitted to myself that Calvinism’s claim that man had no ‘genuine’ free will or influence on actual events was not only arguable, but absurd.”
The claim that man has no ‘genuine’ free will is based on Total Depravity where man is spiritually dead and enslaved to sin. However, you know this based on your past association with Calvinism. Don’t you??
FOH writes, “I just read the Bible where God Himself if giving man choice thousands of times.”
Even you know that this is not the issue. The issue is the “freedom” that people exercise in making choices. If people inherited a corruption from Adam that prevents them exercising the freedom that Adam enjoyed, then they do not exercise “genuine freedom.” Do they??
Yes, and Acts 5 where Peter rebukes Ananias and Sapphira.
Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy spirit. While it remained yours was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?
Well No – Not if Calvin’s god is sovereign. So it logically follows in Calvinism Peter is not speaking the WHOLE truth.
Here is how it works
(1) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Satan, to temp Ananias and Sapphira
(2) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Ananias and Sapphira to lie
(3) Calvin’s god judges Ananias and Sapphira for doing what he CONTROLLED them to do
(4) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Peter to speak *AS-IF* (1-3) were not true.
br.d writes, “Here is how it works
(1) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Satan, to temp Ananias and Sapphira”
Thus, Satan cannot tempt Ananias and Sapphira as he could not tempt Eve without God removing His protection of them.
“(2) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Ananias and Sapphira to lie”
Thus, God does not intervene to prevent them doing so. God lets their corrupt hearts rule their actions.
“(3) Calvin’s god judges Ananias and Sapphira for doing what he CONTROLLED them to do”
And what it was their heart’s desire and clear intent to do.
“(4) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Peter to speak *AS-IF* (1-3) were not true.”
A delusional conclusion. Peter in no way denies either God’s sovereignty, the influence of Satan, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, or their responsibility for their sin.
br.d writes, “Here is how it works
(1) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Satan, to temp Ananias and Sapphira”
rhutchin
Thus, Satan cannot tempt Ananias and Sapphira as he could not tempt Eve without God removing His protection of them.
br.d
A great example of Calvinist beguiling double-talk
Here the euphemism “removing protection” is used to camouflage CONTROL
“(2) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Ananias and Sapphira to lie”
rhutchin
Thus, God does not intervene to prevent them doing so. God lets their corrupt hearts rule their actions.
br.d
Here the euphemism “not Intervene to prevent” is used to camouflage CONTROL
“(3) Calvin’s god judges Ananias and Sapphira for doing what he CONTROLLED them to do”
rhutchin
And what it was their heart’s desire and clear intent to do.
br.d
Here what is strategically hidden is that fact that Calvin’s god CONTROLS every human desire
“(4) Calvin’s god CONTROLS Peter to speak *AS-IF* (1-3) were not true.”
rhutchin
A delusional conclusion. Peter in no way denies either God’s sovereignty, the influence of Satan, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, or their responsibility for their sin.
br.d
We’re talking about what is logically consistent with the Calvinist interpretation of the text.
Calvinist Paul Helm states what is logically consistent with the Calvinist interpretation: -quote EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF god.
If Paul Helm’s statement is correct then Calvin’s god CONTROLS Peter to speak *AS-IF* (1-3) were not true.”
Thanks for the examples rhutchin. 😀
br.d writes, “A great example of Calvinist beguiling double-talk
Here the euphemism “removing protection” is used to camouflage CONTROL”
Control over a situation encompasses both protection and a lack of protection as promotes God’s purposes. No double-talk, just your lack of understanding about control.
Then, “Here what is strategically hidden is that fact that Calvin’s god CONTROLS every human desire”
Nothing hidden. God’s control can lead to a change in course and the continuation of that course as promotes God’s purposes. Another failure on your part to understand control.
Then, “Calvinist Paul Helm states what is logically consistent with the Calvinist interpretation: -quote EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF god.
If Paul Helm’s statement is correct then Calvin’s god CONTROLS Peter to speak *AS-IF* (1-3) were not true.””
You really don’t understand the concept of “control.” Peter speaks as if (1-3) are true and does so under the control of God – meaning that God could have intervened to have Peter say something else but did not..
rhutchin writes:
You really don’t understand the concept of “control.” Peter speaks as if (1-3) are true and does so under the control of God – meaning that God could have intervened to have Peter say something else but did not..
br.d
You’re attempts to deny your own belief system are consistent.
If “not intervening” were all that is meant by CONTROL in Calvinism – there would be no disagreement between Calvinism and its alternatives. William Lane Craig wouldn’t call it Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Obviously your attempts to obfuscate don’t add up.
CONTROL in Theological Determinism equates to:
A THEOS CONTROLS what Peter thinks/chooses/desires/does.
And
Peter cannot think/choose/desire/do otherwise.
Additionally you can’t show where the text EXPLICITLY states that Peter affirms (1-3).
Your contradicting yourself in every other post, in your attempts at evading your own belief system. 😀
Thanks for the great examples rhutchin – you always provide the best!
I get it now. If I fail to respond to one of R’s post and remain silent. (passive) I am controlling R. Makes perfect sense?
Just minding my own business, reading the Amos sections of the through-the-Bible in a year…..
7:1 The Sovereign Lord showed me a vision. I saw him preparing to send a vast swarm of locusts over the land. This was after the king’s share had been harvested from the fields and as the main crop was coming up. 2 In my vision the locusts ate every green plant in sight. Then I said, “O Sovereign Lord, please forgive us or we will not survive, for Israel is so small.”
3 So the Lord relented from this plan. “I will not do it,” he said.
————
So, what am I, the simple Bible reader, supposed to take from this passage?
1. God planned before time to give Amos a vision saying that He would send locust.
2. God planned before time to have Amos says “O Lord dont do it!”
3. God planned before time to relent from doing it (never really intending to do it in the first place).
Really?
In that case…..in the Calvinist version….what is the point? What is the lesson? What do we learn about God?
What does this Calvinist version of this simple passage teach us?
….God never intended to do what He said He was going to do (cuz He cant change or change His mind!!!)
….Amos had no influence on God (heresy—God just wants to make it look like he does)
….God does not “relent” from His plans (so sorry that word is in there) since He never planned to do it in the first place.
So the Calvinist teaches on Sunday:
Folks, this passage does not mean what it looks like it says.
So sorry for words like “relent” in God’s word folks—-rats! its uses the same word in our Calvinist ESV!!
God planned the whole drama out the way it went —nothing to see here—move along.
Class dismissed. Now go home and do whatever you want, cuz whatever you do is what God programmed you to do.
FOH writes, “1. God planned before time to give Amos a vision saying that He would send locust.
2. God planned before time to have Amos says “O Lord dont do it!”
3. God planned before time to relent from doing it (never really intending to do it in the first place).
Really?”
Yes, really. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul writes of OT events that, “these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
So, here, we have a lesson by God showing that He responds to His elect so that we might be encouraged to “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” (Philippians 4)
Oh wait….there’s more!
Amos 7:4 …behold, the Lord God was calling for a judgment by fire, and it devoured the great deep and was eating up the land. 5 Then I said,
“O Lord God, please cease!
How can Jacob stand?
He is so small!”
6 The Lord relented concerning this:
“This also shall not be,” said the Lord God.
————–
What? It’s like the Lord is trying to tell us something! He is personal. He hears our cries. He relents.
I’m not going looking for a 40-verse-needle in a 66-book haystack folks! These verses are everywhere.
That is why our Christian history has us teaching our kids songs like “Jesus loves me this I know….for the Bible tells me so.” And not songs like “Jesus loves about .0005% of us…the rest of us were never loved or considered.”
That is why our Christian history has us teaching our kids songs like “Jesus loves the little children …all the children of the world.” And not songs like “Jesus loves all types of children of the world —-but “world” doesn’t really mean world anyway…”
We have these songs and a understanding of a loving, personal God because the Bible paints that picture of Him.
Now….if Calvin wants to mix in a little Greek philosophy…..with Middle Ages totalitarian cruelty…..mixed with 40-50 verses taken only-his-way…… and crank out a static, wooden, immutable, impassible, impersonal deity….. well….okay. Take that pill if it helps you sleep.
I just read what God says……He relented from His plans.
FOH writes, “What? It’s like the Lord is trying to tell us something! He is personal. He hears our cries. He relents.”
Therefore we ought always to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need” for certain is it that God will hear us. Not only that, but God has decreed His response to help us. Only a foolish believer (an obvious oxymoron) would think it useless to call on God.
Switching over to the NT part of today’s reading….
Rev 3:10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. 11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.”
————
Every day. Every day……God’s word says “because you have…..I will …”
Because they do –or dont do something—- God will act (or react that is).
Yes…..I know…..if doesnt really mean what it says. I know He ‘necessarily’ ordered/ willed/ commanded/ ordained/ decree all things before time….. and this is just for show. Just to help us understand. Understand what?
He says “because you did that I will…”
Why? What is the point of deceiving us over and over, since they didnt really impact His decision?
Then later He says….”Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.” Someone could seize it? Apparently.
Hold or not hold….
Seize the crown or not seize it…
All these “ifs” —why write it out so uncertain if it is all so certain?
Yes I know, it doesn’t really mean what it says.
FOH writes, “Why? What is the point of deceiving us over and over, since they didnt really impact His decision?”
Here, God speaks to His church in Philadelphia. God does not deceive His elect. No reason to think He would.
Then, “Then later He says….”Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.” Someone could seize it? Apparently. ”
This depends on the meaning of “crown.” As it is a current possession, it is not salvation as that is something that is guaranteed now but received when Christ returns. “when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (1 Peter 5) or “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” (Revelation 2) In Revelation 6, “I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him; and he went out conquering, and to conquer.” In that sense, believers have been given a crown, the gospel, with which they go out proclaiming the gospel and conquering the world for Christ. To have some seize that crown is to become ineffective being neutralized perhaps, by accommodating worldly methods in evangelizing the world or perhaps, compromising on the truths of the Scriptures.
A CALVINIST SYLLOGISM ON PRAYER
remember in order to reject a syllogism one must reject at least one of its premises.
Premise 1: Calvin’s god’s decrees are unchangeable thus prayer does not change them
Premise 2: Calvin’s god ordains *ALL* things which come to pass with unchangeable decrees
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism prayer does not change anything which comes to pass
br.d writes, “In Calvinism prayer does not change anything which comes to pass”
The purpose of prayer is to appropriate that which God has promised; that may change things for the one who prays but not that which God has decreed.
remember in order to reject a syllogism one must reject at least one of its premises.
Premise 1: Calvin’s god’s decrees are unchangeable thus prayer does not change them
Premise 2: Calvin’s god ordains *ALL* things which come to pass with unchangeable decrees
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism prayer does not change anything which comes to pass
rhutchin:
The purpose of prayer is…..THAT MAY CHANGE THINGS FOR THE ONE WHO PRAYS but not that which God has decreed.
br.d
So then you reject Premise 2: Calvin’s God ordains *ALL* things which come to pass with unchangeable decrees (since obviously a CHANGE IN THE ONE WHO PRAYS logically entails a change in something that comes to pass).
Unless you want to argue that a change in a person doesn’t come to pass. 😉
br.d writes, “So then you reject Premise 2: Calvin’s God ordains *ALL* things which come to pass with unchangeable decrees (since obviously a CHANGE IN THE ONE WHO PRAYS logically entails a change in something that comes to pass). ”
I don’t see it. I have the person’s situation changing while God’s decrees remain unchanged.
You err by assuming, “a CHANGE IN THE ONE WHO PRAYS logically entails a change in something that comes to pass.” God’s decrees are able to incorporate the prayers of individuals.
A CALVINIST SYLLOGISM ON PRAYER
Remember in order to reject a syllogism one must reject at least one of its premises.
Premise 1: Calvin’s god’s decrees are unchangeable thus prayer does not change them
Premise 2: Calvin’s god ordains *ALL* things which come to pass with unchangeable decrees
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism prayer does not change anything which comes to pass
rhutchin:
The purpose of prayer is…..THAT MAY CHANGE THINGS FOR THE ONE WHO PRAYS but not that which God has decreed.
br.d
So then you reject Premise 2: Calvin’s God ordains *ALL* things which come to pass with unchangeable decrees (since obviously a CHANGE IN THE ONE WHO PRAYS logically entails a change in something that comes to pass).
Unless you want to argue that a change in a person doesn’t come to pass. 😉
rhutchin:
I don’t see it. I have the person’s situation changing while God’s decrees remain unchanged.
You err by assuming, “a CHANGE IN THE ONE WHO PRAYS logically entails a change in something that comes to pass.” God’s decrees are able to incorporate the prayers of individuals.
br.d
You either respond to the syllogism honestly or not.
You have have two choices.
1) You can accept the syllogism as true
2) You can reject the syllogism by rejecting one of the premises and showing where the premise is wrong.
If God decreed the person’s situation, then what exactly is changing? Nothing. God decreed the situation, the prayer and the so called change.The computer is already programmed. The code never changes. The robots are just playing their roles without know it.
WW, You become a happy robot, knowing that the ignorance, confusion, addiction and whatever sins you have mucked up your life with are really not your fault. In a Flip Wilson sorta way, you can cheekily do whatever you want and say ‘God made me do it!’
Brutely fulfilling desires is what the animals do, and few ultimately question why rabbits eat our prized flowers, dogs chase our cats, or lions take down zebras. God gave them those desires, and that is what they must desire and will do.
However much they try to doubletalk their way around it, Calvinism essentially views man as an animal who must do as his desires lead him. And since their sovereign, omnipotent God is too frightened and weak to take on real men, he must secretly ‘curse’ them so that they cannot make genuine free choices; he secretly controls their ultimate desires so that they will conform with his plan, even while making them think they actually make totally free choices. Go ahead, little Calvinist, try and make one of your ‘choices’. Do something God doesn’t want you to do, go against his will, his predetermined and ordained plan. You cannot do it, not for one second. You are no more responsible for what you do than for what you don’t do. It is all God’s plan, he ordained it and it is going to happen exactly as he has decided. You are ‘less than nothing’ and nothing you think, say or do, ultimately matters. It is all a script, written long ago by someone else, and you, my friend, are a mere puppet who thinks the length of his strings somehow makes him real.
This is, of course, exactly what Satan suggested in the garden, encouraging Adam’s rebellion against this cruel, selfish God who only pretends to seek his best interests. Then again, if Calvinism is right, Satan was right as well. God isn’t after our best interests, but its all about his own glory. Just as Satan suggests.
TS00:
Put differently…
Calvinists come to the table with a very Hellenistic worldview.
1. They proclaim that God is immutable, impassible, changeless, and emotionless.
2. Their definition of Sovereign leaves them trapped —-He must ‘necessarily’ control everything or nothing.
3. Their definition of omniscience leaves them trapped —-To know it means to have planned it. And of course He knows it —since “He is outside of time”.
All of these ideas they bring to the table and support them with various vague needles they found in the Bible haystack.
——-
We come to the table with Christ. God Himself.
1. He is full of change and emotion. He became flesh. He was a baby. Change is not impossible. Nor are His emotions. How can we even hint that our God is immutable and impassible (two very non-negotiables to Calvinists) when we see Christ. Is He not God?
2. His version of sovereignty is servanthood. Not control.
3. His version of omniscience is waiting on the Father and being very much in-time. “knowing not His hour.”
—-
So, they end up with a wooden deity that is impersonal (how can that be a “personal relationship” if everything we do is what He planned?)
We end up with a suffering Christ, who showed us that He cares, changes, calls out to us (come to me all you who labor….heavy-laden…I will give you rest).
Fix your eyes on that Christ! I have stopped responding to all this Hellenistic double-talk.
There is much our Savior calls us to do…..and it has not been pre-programmed: fix your eyes, walk in the Spirit, stand firm, resist, be prepared, draw near…..
Wonderful!
FOH, your words are very moving. I am at times a Don Quixote, striking at windmills because I cannot get at the real dragons. How I long for my Calvinist friends and loved ones, who have been deceived into a cold, sacral religion, to have that genuine, meaningful relationship with a loving, personal, responsive God that you and I share. And I am eager to spare others from falling into the same trap, being wooed into a seemingly grand, glorious view of God that is cold, soul-killing and leads to despair. I covet your prayers.
TS00:
There is a lot to be said for “God’s glory.”
That card will be played soon and often in any response to you …..and we best not downplay His glory.
With that said, there are dozens, scores….hundreds (?) of verses where “The Sovereign Lord” says that He is doing things “For David’s sake” ….many times “For the sake of my servant Jacob….Abraham…..David.”
God bestows honor on people. Honors them for their faith. Calls some blameless…. “walked with God.”
God negotiates with people… Abraham (50, 40, 30, etc), Moses (dont destroy them), Amos (in my yesterday’s reading).
All of this shows that it is not ALL about God’s glory. By God’s own design…He honors man somewhat.
Of course….in order to hold the moral high ground….they will play the inevitable “it is all about God’s glory!!” card. But this is just so much word games.
The Scripture is full of verses talking man and his glory. Try these for starters and go from there: Psalm 8:5, Psalm 149:4-5, 9, Proverbs 16:31, Proverbs 28:12, Isaiah 17:3, Isaiah 60:1-2, Isaiah 60:4, Lamentations 3:17-18, Ezekiel 10:19, Ezekiel 11:22, Daniel 2:37, Daniel 5:18, Mark 10:37, John 5:44, John 17:22, Romans 2:6-7, 9-10, Romans 5:2, Romans 9:22-23, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 3:16-19, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Peter 4:14, 1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:3-4
I will be called heretic for talking about man’s glory….but I just go with the Bible, not Hellenistic, Augustinian presuppositions.
ts00 writes, “n a Flip Wilson sorta way, you can cheekily do whatever you want and say ‘God made me do it!’”
This is wrong. God does not make him do it as he does it himself. God knows what he will do before he does it and does not intervene to stop him – thus it is ordained.
ts00 writes, “n a Flip Wilson sorta way, you can cheekily do whatever you want and say ‘God made me do it!’”
rhutchin:
This is wrong. God does not make him do it as he does it himself. God knows what he will do before he does it and does not intervene to stop him – THUS IT IS ORDAINED.
br.d
THUS IT IS ORDAINED/DECREED/DETERMINED such that man cannot do otherwise.
Thus the Calvinist psychological investment destroys his ability to discern the contradiction. 😀
TS00:
One more thing that comes to mind about “glory.”
One can build a case for almost anything taking only certain verses (and out of context) and not others. The cults have done that well. But truly we must look at ALL of Scripture.
So….
For every one verse about “I will not share my glory” there are 10 verses showing that He does honor and give glory too.
For every one verse that says God does not change His mind (make sure to look what He is saying in the context for both those), there are 10 verses showing that He can and does change His plans.
For every one verse (again out of context –Rom 3:11) saying man “cannot seek God,” we have 10 verses saying that he can and should seek God.
The sheer weight of Scripture and multiple references come against all of the 40-50 “key verses” they use (over and over!).
The context of their proof-texts is all but ignored.
FOH writes, “For every one verse (again out of context –Rom 3:11) saying man “cannot seek God,” we have 10 verses saying that he can and should seek God.”
Romans 3:11 has, ““There is no-one righteous, not even one; there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God.”
The claim is that (1) no one is righteous (i.e., all are sinners and lost), (2) None of the unrighteous understands (i.e., of spiritual things – his sin and his accountability to God), and (3) no one seeks God (because of (1) and (2)). This statement is the conclusion to all those verses wherein people are urged to seek God – they see no reason to do so. Thus, Jesus said, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” It is no wonder that those who cannot see God’s kingdom would then not seek Him.
You, my friend, [i.e. the Calvinist] are a mere puppet who thinks the length of his strings somehow makes him real.
br.d
This statement is very insightful!!
I had always observed the Calvinist as a puppet trying to make his immutable decree strings invisible.
I hadn’t considered the length of the strings as a factor until you mentioned it.
But that is exactly right!
Every time I get into a dialog with rhutchin where I attempt to get him to follow the causal chain – back up to its SOURCE/ORIGIN, he always seeks to insert new antecedent links into the chain in order to prevent himself from getting to the SOURCE/ORIGIN link – which is of course Calvin’s god.
Another way for the Calvinist to do that in his mind is to modulate the length of the strings – to create imaginary distance from the SOURCE/ORIGIN – whenever he needs it – and then reduce the length again so that he can return to boasting his doctrine is of divine sovereignty (puppet strings) makes his theology superior.
Great catch Truthseeker!!
ww writes, “If God decreed the person’s situation, then what exactly is changing? Nothing.”
Not from God’s point of view. From man’s point of view, Yes. If a person prays for wisdom, he receives wisdom. If he does not pray for wisdom, then he does not receive wisdom.
CALVIN’S GOD DECREES/ORDAINS/DETERMINES PEOPLE TO HAVE FALSE PERCEPTIONS
ww writes,
“If God decreed the person’s situation, then what exactly is changing? Nothing.”
rhutcin
NOT FROM [Calvin’s] god’s point of view. From man’s point of view, Yes. ….etc
br.d
Notice the language trickery rhuthcin uses here. -quote “point of view” is used as a euphemism for “perception”.
Let’s re-write it then.
“Not from Calvin’s god’s PERCEPTION – from man’s PERCEPTION yes”.
The question then remains – WHO DECREED/ORDAINED/DETERMINED MAN TO HAVE FALSE PERCEPTIONS?
Nothing happens in a fated world that God did not decree. It matters little whether it is Calvin’s world or the world of Islam. The future is fully set by the gods decree. Any Talk of the creatures prayer changing anything is foolishness. However here in the real world, we are to pray that God’s will will be done and his kingdom will come because God’s will is not always done here and his kingdom has not fully come.
WW:
Your comment makes me think of two things (Islam, prayer).
1. I have commented many times in these pages that the Calvinist-determinist position is exactly that of the In-sha-allah of Islam (Qadar in Arabic). There is no difference. Just swapped holy books and deities.
2. I have been thinking about the verses that say that Christ came to “reconcile.” That idea means de facto that things were not right, not the way God intended. We cannot have Christ “reconciling” that which was already the way God had wanted/ willed/ ordained/ decreed it to be. There is no “reconciling” if God’s will is already in place.
ww writes, “Nothing happens in a fated world that God did not decree.”
This is the world that God created in Genesis 1.
Then, “The future is fully set by the gods decree.
This presumes that God is omniscient
Then, “Any Talk of the creatures prayer changing anything is foolishness.”
Only if one denies the Scriptures. A person asking God for wisdom receives wisdom – something is added to him (He is changed). This outcome was foreknown by God and therefore, decreed.
An omniscient God could act in any number of Ways. If he chose to, he could create a world where everything happened by decree. Or if he chose, he could create a world where his creation had dominion and free will. Scripture is full of if/ than statements. If you do this , says God, I will do that. If God had fated everything to happen a certain way from the start , then he is either lying or schizophrenic.
WW:
This new post also makes me think of two things (could have, lying)
1. I think all of us agree that the God of the Bible could have created in the way determinists say. It is just unfair/ unwise/ illogical/ unbiblical to start with that definition and look in the Bible-stack for the verse-needles used to patch together the “proof” for that.
2. We have stated many, many times the thousands of if/then verses in the Bible that are all misleading if God takes no responses of men into account. He would be…as you say schizophrenic or lying.
Yes I totally agree.
The Psalms tells us “those who worship them [mad made god’s] become like unto them”.
We understand Calvinism is all about speaking with forked-tongue.
And that is what we see with Calvin’s deity who commands Adam to obey while secretly determines/fates him not to. And all of the other similar examples in scripture.
A earthly religious group whose members learn the art of speaking with forked tongue – have a deity that does the same. And that’s supposed to be a superior theology? I don’t think so.
ww writes, “if he chose, he could create a world where his creation had dominion and free will.”
God could decree such – and He did. Everyone seems to agree that Adam had a free will and God gave Adam dominion or stewardship over His creation.
Then, “Scripture is full of if/ than statements. If you do this , says God, I will do that. If God had fated everything to happen a certain way from the start , then he is either lying or schizophrenic.”
I don’t see why God cannot present people with an if-then decision while knowing how they would decide.
Rhutchin writes: “I don’t see why God cannot present people with an if-then decision while knowing how they would decide.”
At last, you understand the true definition of foreknowledge. It requires no ordaining or interference from God, merely before the fact knowledge. Congratulations!
ts00 writes, “At last, you understand the true definition of foreknowledge. It requires no ordaining or interference from God, merely before the fact knowledge. ”
So, we can now investigate how God knows the future before it happens. Would you like to take the first crack at explaining how God knows such things?
Rhutchin writes: “I don’t see why God cannot present people with an if-then decision while knowing how they would decide.”
Truthseeker:
At last, you understand the true definition of foreknowledge. It requires no ordaining or interference from God, merely before the fact knowledge. Congratulations!
br.d
Another example of Calvinists duplicity!!
1) Claim some “difference” makes them better than [X] theology
2) Then run for cover behind the camouflage of [X] when that “difference” is scrutinized.
I hope that now that Rhutchin understands the possibiliy of God’s foreknowledge of man’s free choices he will be free to reject the constraints of Calvinism’s demands that God can only foreknow that which he has decreed. It appears our friend is well on his way to escaping his lasting confusion.
ts00 writes, “…he will be free to reject the constraints of Calvinism’s demands that God can only foreknow that which he has decreed…”
The decree explanation is one explanation for God’s knowledge of the future. Do you have a second opinion?
‘possibility’ – my ‘t’ key is shot.
rhutchin writes:
The purpose of prayer is to appropriate that which God has PROMISED; that may change things for the one who prays but not that which God has decreed.
br.
Listen to the libertarian sounding language! “to appropriate that which Calvin’s god has promised” *AS-IF* Calvin’s god allowed any alternative possibility other than what he decreed.
Calvinism’s double-speak is too funny!!
We also have Calvinism’s deterministic definition of “Change”.
Under that definition a puppet master making the puppet turn to the left represents a “change”.
Where can we sign up! 😀
WW writes: “However here in the real world, we are to pray that God’s will will be done and his kingdom will come because God’s will is not always done here and his kingdom has not fully come.”
And what this, and scripture’s similar statements on the importance and power of prayer seem to suggest is that, what is almost inconceivable is being said: God has given genuine power to weak, mortal men to have an impact on real events in the world. Since God will never overrule the moral will he gave to man, it requires our submission, our literal consent and request that God ignore our feeble desires and feelings and use us as if we were the persons he intends us to one day be. ‘Not my will, but thine’ is praying that God do what is best, what will reach others with good news of his love, what will check evil, oppression and injustice, rather than what my ignorant, mortal flesh really wants to satisfy its own personal cravings for comfort, peace and happiness. What an amazing privilege and thought provoking responsibility we have been given, to actually be a part of God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven – by means of his wisdom, power and omniscient ability to know what is best.
wildswanderer
December 12, 2017 at 11:28 pm
I get it now. If I fail to respond to one of R’s post and remain silent. (passive) I am controlling R. Makes perfect sense?
br.d
This post got missed – but it is a slamming response to rhutchin’s logic.
Great catch Wildswanderer!!!
We’re all seeing more and more the sophisms/dishonesty in Calvinism with rhutchin’s help. 😀
When Henry Ford set up the assembly line for cars he was a big success. Some came along and said it could be better if they said they could order other colors beside black. Ford wanted to be efficient (total control).
He uttered, “They can have any color they want, as long as it’s black!”
So….we get told, “God can present people with if-then decisions …as long as they decide what He has already decided!”
It’s that simple. All the thousands of if/then passages are an illusion (…..tick tick….you’re getting sleepy……tick…tick)
Three camps:
1. Knowing means ordaining/ deciding Himself (take that pill if you need to sleep).
2. Knowing means ….uh….knowing….but somehow man decides.
3. Knowing means He knows all that He wants to know…..and is still sovereign enough, mighty enough to win and achieve His eternal purposes (what He knows He will do) no matter what man decides.
And it is number three that most reveals the true amazing, incomparable, unimaginable greatness and glory of God, who can work all things – every free choice of man, to obey, disobey or try and screw up royally – according to his will and accomplish his eternal, immutable, marvelous plan to redeem those who are willing, conform them to the perfect image of His Son Jesus, and enjoy eternal, blessed fellowship with them forever! Amen!
ts00 writes, “And it is number three that most reveals…”
Of course, Number 3 does not say anything. However, everyone can agree with the rest of your statement.
FOH writes, “So….we get told, “God can present people with if-then decisions …as long as they decide what He has already decided!””
God presents people with if-then decisions …knowing what they will decide decided. Where the if-then proposition is presented to unbelievers, it is universally rejected. No surprise there.
A Calvinist is a very talented creature.
He’s instructed in how to point 10 fingers in 20 different directions at the same time. 😀
This was fun reading FOH!! :-]
A bit more about if-then constructions in God’s word.
Some would have us believe that biblical if-then propositions are rejected by, or useless to, non-believers. They are “universally rejected.” This is wrong, unbilbical, and just plain silly.
Many of the Proverbs are if-then style and just as valid for anyone. A non-believer can easily benefit from following the counsel given in the Proverbs. It is so nonsensically black-and-white with Calvinists….kind of a “believers can do no wrong and non-believers can do no right” mentality.
A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones [if you have a cheerful heart, then you are healthy]
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. [if you are proud then you will fall]
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger [if you give a gentle answer then you turn away wrath]
Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are careful to discipline them [etc]
Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! [etc]
Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. [etc]
and on and on…..lots of if-then constructions that can be applied by any one for a healthier life.
FOH writes, “Many of the Proverbs are if-then style and just as valid for anyone. A non-believer can easily benefit from following the counsel given in the Proverbs.”
True. Unbelievers can take advantage of the proverbs. They do so from self-interest; believers do so from love of God.
If it were universally rejected, not one would be converted. How can omniscience depend on God’s decree? That would mean one of God’s attributes depends on another to be true. God is omniscient because he is, whether he decrees, whether he creates or doesn’t.
If it were universally rejected, not one would be converted. How can omniscience depend on God’s decree? That would mean one of God’s attributes depends on another to be true. God is omniscient because he is, whether he decrees, whether he creates or doesn’t.
That’s absolutely true!
The classic orthodox doctrine holds that God’s omniscience is an “essential” attribute of his existence.
Rutchin insists that God existed in a state without knowledge (logically) prior to his decrees.
Calvinism removes “omniscience” as an “essential” attribute of god’s existence and replaces it with “decrees”.
Calvinists simply worship raw power.
ww writes, “If it were universally rejected, not one would be converted.”
That is Calvinism’s claim (with Arminians agreeing). When Adam sinned , he incurred spiritual death and faith departed and these were lost to his progeny (they became Totally Depraved). Thus, Christ said, “No one can come to me…” (John 6) This is why Calvinists maintain that a person must be regenerated (have spiritual life restored) and be given faith in order to be saved. Arminians say that God must extend prevenient grace to people to negate Total Depravity.
Then, “How can omniscience depend on God’s decree?”
Omniscience encompasses God’s knowledge of His decrees. To have knowledge of X in the future (in this universe), God must decree X.
Then, “That would mean one of God’s attributes depends on another to be true. God is omniscient because he is, whether he decrees, whether he creates or doesn’t.”
Yep. So, we can, at least, explain some of God’s knowledge by His decrees. Outside that, everyone says that omniscience is a mystery.
Rhutchin writes: ” So, we can, at least, explain some of God’s knowledge by His decrees. Outside that, everyone says that omniscience is a mystery.”
I would posit that this is a very, very telling statement. Many of the ‘problems’ debated, nay, created, by those who claim to be orthodox theologians arise from an arrogant belief that they can better ‘understand’ or ‘explain’ God than others. While denouncing some inexplicable, supernatural qualities and works of God as ‘mystery’ on one hand, they write tomes and volumes dissecting other ‘mysteries’ they judge themselves uniquely ‘capable’ of explaining. These men arrogantly assert that they, and in the case of Calvin – they alone – can decipher the mind and Words of God, and that all others must humbly submit to their interpretations without question.
I was recently listening to a teacher sharing some of his thoughts on Calvinism, gained by decades of study, experience and thought. He struck me as going to great lengths to be reasonable and fair, not creating stawmen or caricatures. His name is Steve Gregg, and I will provide the link to his site which lists this and other recordings – most of which I have not listened to, so cannot approve or disapprove.
http://thenarrowpath.com/topical_lectures.php#GodsSovereigntyandMansSalvation
He made one statement that really struck me, and I tried to transpose it as accurately as possible. On Calvinism’s appeal to so-called ‘Sola Scriptura’ he said:
“It would appear to me, that in many cases the Calvinist theology requires that a person not so much give the highest priority to the statements of scripture, but in some cases requires that they give the highest priority to the statements of Augustine, or Calvin, which are very similar [to one another] . . . It is true of course that Calvin has become a very great hero in the Protestant world, and I’m not saying that he does not deserve some of that credit . . . I just don’t know that he, in writing his Institutes, suddenly put an end to all freedom of Christian thought . . . I don’t see why he should be the last man to have thoughts of his own . . . and why Christians after him could not also look at the scriptures as he did and decide whether or not he got it right.”
Bingo! Who in the world did this man think he was? And why do so many bow in adoring idolatry at his feet?
Many who pride themselves on proclaiming, describing and defending ‘orthodox, historical christian’ creeds refuse to consider, or answer the question as to what man, men or institution was given by God the authority to officially interpret his Word? The Protestants of the Reformation, while decrying the Pope’s write to declare ‘orthodox truth’, substituted their own version, whether it be the opinion of John Calvin, or a whole tribe of (politically controlled) Calvinist Divines. In my humble opinion, God gave us the scripture in its entirety so that we would not fall under the ‘authority’ of mere men, whose opinions, declarations, interpretations and proclamations can never make the claim to be 100%, completely, infallibly accurate.
When men, such as Calvinists, pronounce their belief in ‘Sola Scriptura’ they do NOT admit what scripture itself attests concerning itself: that understanding it requires careful study, frequent meditation and, most importantly, the Holy Spirit of God to instruct and lead us into ever fuller understanding.
What men like John Calvin mean, and seek to enforce by sword and hot fires, is ‘My interpretation of scripture is the inerrant truth, and all who dare to dissent will pay with their lives.’ This is undeniable, well-documented history. Anyone who calls himself a Calvinist must first carefully inform himself of the true words and acts of his revered leader (not a limited, few inspirational commentaries with which many would agree) and ponder exactly what the entirety of them demonstrate as far as his character, knowledge, understanding and, most of all, imitation of Christ’s genuinely inspired Words and fully inerrant example of how to please God.
There is no denying, as even Calvinists must admit, the harsh, ugly, spiteful diatribes and name-calling Calvin was notorious for. They survive, in all of their grossness, in his personal and professional writings. Nor can all of the whitewash in the world hide the countless instances – well-documented by official Genevan records – of oppressive control asserted over private decisions, heinous punishment, torture and murder which Calvin officially ordained, if not meticulously determined, as the ruler of Geneva, and arguably, the ‘official’ Protestant movement.
A great post!
Somehow John Calvin auto-magically amuses everything that comes into his imagination is from divine revelation.
Calvinists follow that very pattern – MAKING STUFF UP is part of what it means to be a Calvinist.
To get some good examples of this watch William Lane Craig’s presentation on youtube
Doctrine of Salvation series (i.e. doctrine from a Calvinist perspective)
Dr. Craig is careful to present an accurate as possible representation of Calvin’s doctrine.
Then he will open the floor to questions or discussion with his audience who are about 10% Calvinist.
Listen to each of the Calvinists take the microphone and launch into his/her own unique and often imaginative explanations of how Calvinism works. MAKING STUFF UP is a normative activity for them. Why? Because that’s exactly what they intuitively observe Calvin doing.
ts00 writes, “in the case of Calvin – they alone – can decipher the mind and Words of God, and that all others must humbly submit to their interpretations without question. ”
Absolutely not! Every believer is to test what anyone says against the Scriptures. What kind of dummy would accept anything someone says, especially regarding the Scriptures, without checking it out??
ts00 writes, “Bingo! Who in the world did [Calvin] think he was? And why do so many bow in adoring idolatry at his feet?”
There is no adoring idolatry. Calvin had a brilliant mind and his writings – Institutes and Commentaries – reflect this. My guess is that he had a photographic memory and either he had a good command of the Greek and Hebrew languages in which the Scriptures were written or he could ask counsel from people who did. Calvin was in his early twenties when the first edition of his Institutes was published. If that is not extraordinary, I don’t know what is. Is there anyone you would favorably compare to Calvin as his equal?
“Omniscience encompasses God’s knowledge of His decrees. To have knowledge of X in the future (in this universe), God must decree X.”
Sez who? God can not know all possible futures without activating a certain one? That’s not omniscience. I can know what I’m going to do today once I decide to do it. And if I had the power to control everything in the universe, I could know the future without being omniscient. The determinist system takes away one of God’s attributes because of their insistence on God being a complete control freak above all else.
Of course, all of God’s attributes have an aspect of mystery. We can’t explain how God has always existed with perfect knowledge, power and so on. We don’t need to weaken our conception of God by trying to explain things that are not explainable. What we can know about God is what he has revealed to us through his Son. Among those is that God is willing to go to any lengths to rescue us from damnation. Calvin has this exactly backwards when he claims that God commands satan to do whatever he does.
As far as Jesus saying no one can come to him, (maybe you should finish the quote) one has to ask what is this drawing? Well, Paul fleshes it out a bit when he says even nature reveals God to us. God is drawing every human in a many different ways throughout his lifetime, IMO. Our choice is whether to pursue him when he draws us or to pursue only temporary self interests. Funny how Jesus often commended people for their faith (“Your faith has made you whole”) as of there was something to commend. If God was simply zapping some with faith and passing by others, this makes no sense whatsoever.
WW:
I hope you will excuse me piggy-backing on your posts but they often make me think of things.
1. For Calvinists, God is a control freak (even though the Word never says He is). For them, He ordains all actions that take place except for man’s sin which is immutably ordained and decreed by Him, but man does of his own free will (“chose any color as long as it’s black”). This the Calvinist neither denies or tries to explain. He just re-packages it in various convoluted, illogical statements.
2. You are spot on with the idea that we can know about God what He reveals to us in His son. Little of Calvinism holds up when seen in the light of person of Christ:
He changes —not immutable,
He has emotions—not impassible,
His will is resisted,
He reconciles —so it must not have been “okay”,
He responds —out the window that “God does not react to man”,
He is humble and submissive — gone is the control freak,
He does battle against sickness, evil, Satan —gone the idea of a schizophrenic God who is battling His will against His own will,
He is patient —gone is the God who planned every movement..what “patience” would that take?
He is submissive (to the Father, but also earthly authority) — gone again the all-controlling puppet-string-puller
He is self-sacrificing, lowering Himself to man’s level and lower — He would be guilty of a “man-centered Gospel”
He calls all men to Himself (“when I am lifted up I will call all men to myself” “come to me all you who are laden”) —gone the .00005% chosen
He is personal (“John behold here your mother”) — gone the wooden, unfeeling master.
He puts limits on Himself (“And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.” “O Jerusalem, I would have …but you were not willing) —gone the idea that all that happens is as God has wanted /planned.
I am sure others can add ways that the person of Christ shatters Calvinism.
3. Yes. Finishing the quote. Half-verses yanked out of context are a specialty of anyone coming to the text with the answers—then finding the half-verses they need. Good job explaining how that oft-quoted half-verse is fleshed out in the context and by Paul. On that note, we are often accused of “not explaining that verse”. Entire blog posts (Leighton), articles, and books have been written to easily give alternative interpretations to that verse and the 40 others on which Calvinism is founded.
4. “Your faith has made you whole.” Of course this kind of verse is ubiquitous in Scripture. It never says…”The faith I gave you has made you whole.” All of these hundreds and hundreds of verses are whisked away —magic wand—- with the idea that God gave faith to a teeeeny- tiiiiny few and the rest are just there for torturous destruction.
Good post!
Roger Olson writes:
If a Calvinist will stick to being a realist/non-voluntarist with regard to God, he will find it much easier to communicate with other Christians and vice versa. If a Calvinist will refuse to fall back on voluntarist exclamations like “God can do whatever he pleases” (which deviates from scripture’s representations of divine ethical standards and thus makes God unknowable and one cannot possibly trust what one cannot know), he will have a much more difficult time defending Calvinism than otherwise.
Calvinism’s best defense is utilitarian voluntarism, but it raises severe problems with God that most Calvinists cannot live with consistently.
Voluntarism: The doctrine that the power of the will overrules all other aspects of one’s nature.
Utilitarianism: A theory which asserts the best action is the one which maximizes utility at the expense of compassion.
br.d writes, “Calvinism’s best defense is utilitarian voluntarism, but it raises severe problems with God that most Calvinists cannot live with consistently.”
Then, obviously, it would not be Calvinism’s best defense. As always, you make bold statements that you cannot support with a reasonable argument.
rhutchin writes:
As always, you make bold statements that you cannot support with a reasonable argument.
To funny!! this Calvinist actually perceives himself as rational thinker!!! 😛
“Omniscience encompasses God’s knowledge of His decrees. To have knowledge of X in the future (in this universe), God must decree X.”
This is a great example of how Calvinists beguiling double-talk works.
1) Notice how *UNIVERSAL* and unambiguous this statement is.
This is one of the statements Calvinist make by which they boast their theology is set apart and superior.
2) But now watch when some intellectually savvy Christian asks the obvious question – if that is the case, then where X = Adam’s disobedience, it logically follows that Calvin’s god must decree Adam’s disobedience. And obviously Calvin’s god can’t decree X and NOT X at the same time, because they negate each other. So he could only decree Adam’s disobedience else it couldn’t’ come to pass.
So since Adam’s disobedience is what came to pass, it logically follows – Calvin’s god specifically decreed Adam’s disobedience.
That is TRUTH as discerned through rational reasoning.
Try getting an acknowledgement of that truth out of Rhutchin (or most other Calvinists) and you’re leading a horse to water who refuses to drink!
What you get instead are dishonest talking points strategically designed to evade the logical consequences of their UNIVERSAL statements.
br.d writes, “So since Adam’s disobedience is what came to pass, it logically follows – Calvin’s god specifically decreed Adam’s disobedience.”
Calvinism says that God decrees all things, even sin. Per Ephesians 1 – “God works all things [including sin] after the counsel of His will.” I don’t see an issue here.
br.d writes,
“So since Adam’s disobedience is what came to pass, it logically follows – Calvin’s god specifically decreed Adam’s disobedience.”
rutchin
Calvinism says that God decrees all things, even sin. Per Ephesians 1 – “God works all things [including sin] after the counsel of His will.” I don’t see an issue here.
br.d
Ok then lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following statement.
CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
I’ll wager you can’t answer a simple TRUE or FALSE acknowledgment – but will instead deflect with some kind of distancing language.
br.d – “CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE”
True. Did you not read the earlier part of your comment, “Calvinism says that God decrees all things, even sin.” Are you trying to make a point but can’t figure out anything reasonable to say??
br.d
December 15, 2017 at 4:44 pm
lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following statement.
CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 7:08 am
True
br.d
Ok, then – lets see how far you are wiling to be straightforward and not evasive on this.
Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
“…And Roger is being painted into a corner again…” but he has pretty long legs to jump out… he just doesn’t realize how much paint that he has to mess up to get out of each corner! 😉
It was fun to see how far I could get rhutchin to go honest TRUE / FALSE answers.
You saw the progression and knew he would have to jump out of it as some point.
Good wisdom!
Calvinists are the semantic-version of the money changers of Jesus’ day – that’s for sure! 😀
br.d writes, “2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE”
True.
br.d
December 15, 2017 at 4:44 pm
lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following statement.
CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 7:08 am
True
br.d
December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok Since – it then logically follows:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
True.
br.d
Ok lets continue and see if you’re willing to give non-evasive answers
Since
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
AND
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows:
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS
TRUE or FALSE?
br.d writes, “Then it logically follows: 3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS.
True.
br.d
You could go all day doing this….
True or False: My (very) Calvinist pastor friend —who cheated on his wife and went off with a married congregant— could NOT have remained faithful.
br.d
December 15, 2017 at 4:44 pm
lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following.
CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 7:08 am
True
br.d
December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
True.
br.d
Ok lets continue…..
Since
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
AND
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 12:03 pm
True.
br.d
Ok lets continue…..
Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
AND
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
AND
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS
It logically follows
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.
TRUE or FALSE?
br.d writes, “4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
Partially true. God’s decree was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
br.d writes, “
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
rhutchin:
Partially true. God’s decree was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
br.d
This response evades the question.
The question has nothing to do with what Calvin’s god DID decree.
The question was specific to what Calvin’s god DID NOT decree
Unless you want to argue that something can come to pass that Calvin’s god does not decree.
If so, you’ve rejected Calvinism’s principle proposition.
So again here is the question:
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
TRUE or FALSE?
br.d writes, “The question was specific to what Calvin’s god DID NOT decree”
God did not decree that Adam obey. Had God done so, the decree would have triggered further action to bring about Adam’s obedience. The lack of such a decree did not result in Adam’s disobedience but was a necessary factor in Adam’s disobedience as the decree left Adam vulnerable to exploitation by Satan (through Eve). Thus, there is no “because” justified.
br.d
December 15, 2017 at 4:44 pm
lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following statement.
CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 7:08 am
True
br.d
December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
True.
br.d
December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
And
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS.
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 12:03 pm
True.
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm
br.d writes, “4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
Partially true. God’s decree was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
br.d
December 17, 2017 at 8:21 am
br.d writes, “
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
rhutchin:
Partially true. God’s decree was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
br.d
December 17, 2017 at 8:21 am
This response evades the question.
The question has nothing to do with what Calvin’s god DID decree.
The question was specific to what Calvin’s god DID NOT decree
Unless you want to argue that something can come to pass that Calvin’s god does not decree.
If so, you’ve rejected Calvinism’s principle proposition.
So again here is the question:
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm
God did not decree that Adam obey. Had God done so…….etc…etc
br.d
I started this thread by asking you -quote “lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following statement.”
I knew at some point you couldn’t do that and would be forced into side-talking your way out of being honest.
You’ve proven me right again.
Why should anyone trust anything you have to say?
br.d – “4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
TRUE or FALSE?”
It is true that ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS
It is not true “because…”
ww writes, “The determinist system takes away one of God’s attributes because of their insistence on God being a complete control freak above all else.”
With respect to His creation, God is not just in complete control, He is sovereign and in absolute control. That means that nothing can happen unless He says so – God always has the final say on what happens. Most recognize this, as some will argue that God “gives” man a free will or that God somehow puts His sovereignty in neutral so that man can have free will. So, I don’t think omnipotence is an issue here. The issue is when God “knows” how He will exercise His power beginning with the creation in Genesis 1 until the end – and is God limited to making some decisions after people make certain decisions – this situation says that God has to find out, or learn, what a person does in some cases and the effect of this is that God does not know all the future. Welcome to the philosophy of Brian Wagner.
Then, “We can’t explain how God has always existed with perfect knowledge, power and so on. We don’t need to weaken our conception of God by trying to explain things that are not explainable.”
OK. However, God can certainly plan ahead and know what He will do. Given His heavy involvement in His creation and His final say on all that happens, it is not unreasonable to think that He knows what He will do in every situation and knew this in eternity past.
Then, “God is willing to go to any lengths to rescue us from damnation.”
That is what the Universalists say, The non-Universalists (Calvinists, Arminians, etc.) say that God does not do this – but He could.
Then, “Calvin has this exactly backwards when he claims that God commands satan to do whatever he does.”
Certainly, God decrees all that Satan does – but does He have to command all that Satan does? Depends on what is meant by “command.”
Then, “As far as Jesus saying no one can come to him, (maybe you should finish the quote) one has to ask what is this drawing?”
Doesn’t matter. That God must draw gives force to the point that Jesus made – “No one can come…”
Then, “God is drawing every human in a many different ways throughout his lifetime, IMO.”
Again, this is what the Universalist argues. The non-Universalist differently.
Then, “Our choice is whether to pursue him when he draws us or to pursue only temporary self interests.”
The choice is a no-brainer – when God draws, people follow. Of course, as Paul explains in Romans 7, it is a struggle – but Philippians assures the outcome.
Then, “Funny how Jesus often commended people for their faith (“Your faith has made you whole”) as of there was something to commend. If God was simply zapping some with faith and passing by others, this makes no sense whatsoever.”
So, you think God gives everyone faith. OK. That is what the Universlist argues (more or less) – apparently, if God does not give them faith, He just saves them anyway when they die).
“You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.”
The ability to resist God’s drawing is a no brainer… its everywhere in Scripture.
I wonder why so many theologians are so set on embracing a God that looks more like the hand of fate then the Christ who sacrifices himself for all. Perhaps that version of God , being less personal, is easier to categorize and ignore because he’s so distant.
We will rule in the coming Kingdom, even then, God isn’t satisfied for us to merely be his subjects, engaged in an endless worship service in the sky. Certainly, we will worship, but we will also exercise our God given talents and free will to create, because we were born in the image of our Creator. The God we show the world must always look like Christ, and nothing like the cruel hand of fate.
WW:
Here I go again piggy-backing in your good comment!
1. He IS the God of fate for them. I seriously considered doing my MA thesis on the idea that Calvin’s fatalistic version of God is the same as the Qadar (“In-sha-allah”) of Islam.
2. You mentioned being in the image of God. Imagine this….they are saying that all men are created in the image of God, but of course 99.85% are created for a torturous future (no escape intended). Wait…there’s more. Some of these un-chosen ones will be the children of reformed believers so…..they are baptized as infants. Created in the image of God, baptized as infants (as “part of the covenant”), raised in homes reading the Bible and honoring Christ….and yet….many/most are part of the 99.85% who were never intended for salvation. Yum! That’s nice!
But wait….there’s more! Even some of those will think they are part of the family only to be told….Nah, not you. Because, hey….just thinking you believe isn’t enough…..unless you are part of the .15% (decided long before you heard a thing!). Fun, fun, fun!
FOH writes, “they are saying that all men are created in the image of God, but of course 99.85% are created for a torturous future (no escape intended). Wait…there’s more. Some of these un-chosen ones will be the children of reformed believers so…..”
In other words, Calvinists do not believe that God will save everyone. Sounds like FOH is an advocate of Universalism given this complaint.
As a matter of fact other Christians have observed a parallel in behavior between Calvinists and Islamists.
Many of the same tactics and strategies one finds paralleled between the two social groups.
One of those being what the Islamists call “the sacred lie”.
ww writes, ““You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.”
The ability to resist God’s drawing is a no brainer… its everywhere in Scripture.”
Resisting the Holy Spirit can refer to their rejection of the prophets and refusal to obey God. In John 6, Jesus speaks of God drawing people to Himself in order to be saved.
Then, “I wonder why so many theologians are so set on embracing a God that looks more like the hand of fate then the Christ who sacrifices himself for all. ”
Fate is impersonal and has no relationship with people. God is personal and has a relationship with His elect. I doubt that your observation is correct. That “Christ sacrifices himself for all,” is the claim of the Universalist.
You sure do like them squirrels! If all else fails, playing the universalist card is always a good distraction. It’s hard to have a relationship with a god who is as narcissistic as Calvin’s god. It’s hard to have a real relationship with a puppet who can only say he loves you when you move his mouth and say it for him. In a deterministic world, that’s what you have. God causing some people to mouth loving words to him and others repeating the hateful words he puts in their mouths.
WW, sadly, for people who have never experienced genuine love, complete control over others is all they can imagine, so that’s what they transfer onto their image of God. The show of raw power, however ‘glorious’ will never produce love like laying down one’s life for the very one’s who take it.
A puppet master making the puppet say “I love you” to him is the Calvinist’s definition of “free” love. 😀
ww writes, “…playing the universalist card is always a good distraction.”
Do you realize that you are using the same arguments advanced by the Ubiversalists and in doing so, you advocate an universlaist outcome? If you are not Universalist, I don’t understand why you use their arguments. What’s going on??
Then, “In a deterministic world, that’s what you have. God causing some people to mouth loving words to him and others repeating the hateful words he puts in their mouths.”
What does Peter tell us to do, “Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.” He says this because the elect to whom he writes were once slaves to sin and God had freed them to serve Him. Previously, as slaves to sin, they despised God; now being freed from sin Peter says to use that freedom to choose to be salves to God (and Christ). Your claim doesn’t hold water.
What does Peter tell us to do? The very fact that we are encouraged to submit to God indicates that we have a real choice to make. Which of course is only an illusion under determinism.
Many s secular scientists agree with you, btw, they just don’t say that God is the determining Factor.
“You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons … although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/
And what do they advocate? Believing it’s true but living as if it isn’t true. Sound familiar?
WW,
This time I will respond to your post differently, personally. Your post hits very close to home and I have shared this before.
A sibling of mine raised their family in a Bible-teaching (not-reformed) church. A new youth pastor came in very gung-ho as a YRR “doctrines of grace” leader. In about a year the son in this family told his parents that the youth pastor was right….. just without the God part. (fate).
Fifteen years later….and this baptized, son (who had been a leader in the youth dept when the YRR youth pastor came) is even more fate-without-God than ever.
He still is very clear that the Calvinist youth pastor was right—- nothing anyone can do—- but there is no God in the picture.
So…. your neurons-fate concept is accurate. For the scientist-atheist it comes out the same as the fatalist-determinist.
Not a very “personal relationship.”
Wildswanderer sights non-Christian scientists who embrace determinism.
(see link in his WWs post)
WW:
And what do they advocate? Believing it’s true but living *AS-IF* it isn’t true. Sound familiar?
br.d
EXACTLY – Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking model!!
The a question follows:
Does data determine this belief or does this belief determine the human perception of the data?
1) If Person A is convinced that X is unquestionably true
2) And Person A is convinced the data of scripture only affirms that which is true
3) Then Person A is going to be looking for X affirmed in the the data of scripture
4) And Person A is most assuredly find X affirmed in the data of scripture due.
Jonathan “Jay” Koehler PhD Behavioral Sciences
The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality.
The organization of behavioral human decision processes 1993;56: 28-55.
Dr. Koehler asked 297 advanced university science graduate students to evaluate two supposedly genuine experiments after being induced with different “doses” of positive and negative beliefs through false background papers.
Questionnaires showed that their beliefs were successfully manipulated. The students gave significantly higher rating to reports that agreed with their manipulated beliefs, and the effect was greater among those induced to hold stronger beliefs.
In another experiment, 398 researchers who had previously reviewed experiments for a respected journal were unknowingly randomly assigned to assess fictitious reports of treatment for obesity.
The reports were identical except for the description of the intervention being tested. Such confirmation bias appears to be common.
This evaluative process is never totally objective or completely independent of scientists’ convictions or theoretical apparatus. At the cutting edge of scientific progress, where new ideas develop, WE WILL NEVER ESCAPE SUBJECTIVITY.
The interaction between data and presuppositional interpretation is often ignored because there is NO OBJECTIVE MEASURE for the SUBJECTIVE COMPONENTS OF INTERPRETATION.
br.d writes, “Questionnaires showed that their beliefs were successfully manipulated. The students gave significantly higher rating to reports that agreed with their manipulated beliefs, and the effect was greater among those induced to hold stronger beliefs. ”
For the believer, the Scriptures are successfully manipulating their beliefs and these beliefs will be stronger than beliefs based on other sources.
br.d writes, “Questionnaires showed that their beliefs were successfully manipulated. The students gave significantly higher rating to reports that agreed with their manipulated beliefs, and the effect was greater among those induced to hold stronger beliefs. ”
rhutchin
For the believer, the Scriptures are successfully manipulating their beliefs and these beliefs will be stronger than beliefs based on other sources.
br.d
Does your statement apply to “the believer” who sees scripture rejecting Calvinism?
ww writes, “The very fact that we are encouraged to submit to God indicates that we have a real choice to make. Which of course is only an illusion under determinism.”
Determinism does not say that we don’t make real choices – It says that our choices depend on factors other than ourselves. When you were enslaved to sin, sin determined the choices you made. Your slavery to sin provided the grounds for all your desires. When God removed you from slavery to sin, He freed you to submit to Him. Now, the grounds for your desires comes from changes God has made in you. God renewed your spirit making it alive and then, God gave you faith. These new factors determine new desires and the choices you make based on those new desires. Take these away and you remain enslaved to sin. So, Peter tells you to submit to God. What does that mean to someone who had only known slavery to sin? Nothing. You now start studying the Scriptures – a specific desire you have – because Paul tells you to “…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.” and “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” You might even use Ezra as an example as, “Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel.” You have been changed and are now able to make choices entirely different from those you made while enslaved to sin simply because God has changed you. Those choices are free because they are consistent with your desires.
You say that you want to be able to make “real choices.” What do you mean by “real choices”? Why would “real choices” be an illusion just because God knows the choices you will make before you make them?
” Why would “real choices” be an illusion just because God knows the choices you will make before you make them?”
They wouldn’t be an illusion if God only knew them. They would be an illusion if God rendered them certain, so that no other choices existed. Remember, the Calvinist creed is that God does not choose anything based on knowledge of what we will do, only by a mysterious will that we can not understand. Thus, our so called choices are no more ours than they are in the secular determinists world where everything is decided by DNA and environment.
Your conclusions about choosing according to your desires are not consistent with real human behavior. Does sin choose every choice you make as a non believer? If that were the case, how would a non Christian ever do anything right? There have been people of different religions that have been more Christ like than most Christians.
If being a slave to righteousness was a done deal at salvation, you would never sin again. These verses you quoted are great Arminian proof texts, so, thanks! What is God’s will? That which is good and acceptable and perfect! Do we live in a good world? In a perfect world? Then, we must conclude that much of what happens here is not God’s will.
rhutchin
” Why would “real choices” be an illusion just because God knows the choices you will make before you make them?”
WW responds
They wouldn’t be an illusion if God only knew them. They would be an illusion if God rendered them certain, so that no other choices existed.
br.d
Great Catch WW!!
This is an excellent example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-speak.
Here the Calvinist equivocates on his doctrine of Calvin’s god’s knowledge *AS-IF* that knowledge was from simple observation – which the Calvinist otherwise rejects.
Remember, Calvinist language is all about making things masquerade as something they are not.
Here “Foreknowledge” masquerades as “simple observation”.
Like the money changers in Jesus’ day, who shifted the weights on their balancing scales in order to take advantage of the unsuspecting – the Calvinist is an expert at shifting semantic weights.
ww writes, “They wouldn’t be an illusion if God only knew them. They would be an illusion if God rendered them certain, so that no other choices existed. ”
God’s knowledge of event X in the future includes knowledge of the means whereby X comes about thereby rendering X certain through means.
Then, “Remember, the Calvinist creed is that God does not choose anything based on knowledge of what we will do, only by a mysterious will that we can not understand. Thus, our so called choices are no more ours than they are in the secular determinists world where everything is decided by DNA and environment.”
Now, you are looking at the causes for a future event X. Those causes involve means, all of which are under the control of God including the free decisions of people. So, what is the illusion?
“God’s knowledge of event X in the future includes knowledge of the means whereby X comes about thereby rendering X certain through means.”
Gooblygook distraction. The means don’t matter, God’s knowledge doesn’t matter, because in your system knowledge is not determining any thing. The decree comes first so all that matters is that everything is pre set, nothing happens based on mans choice or on God’s knowledge. God programs a series of events that have to happen in the exact way they happen and no other possibilities exist, hypothetical or otherwise.
“Those causes involve means, all of which are under the control of God including the free decisions of people.”
Um, ok then, if we are being directly controlled in every action, why do you insist our decisions are free? If this is the case, God is directly causing all sin, and as I just stated, freedom is an illusion.
ww writes, “The decree comes first so all that matters is that everything is pre set, nothing happens based on mans choice or on God’s knowledge. ”
God’s decrees include the free actions of sinful people. God decreed the crucifixion of Christ, but that decree did not involve forcing anyone to do something they did not want to do. We can say the same for the stoning of Stephen – also a free action by the Jews. The starting point is God’s decree that Adam’s progeny would inherit the corruption of man’s nature caused by Adam’s sin (Calvin called this a horrible decree). From that point, all people are born with a sinful nature, a corrupt mind, and a selfish will that determines the choices a person makes. Under LFW, this corruption is not allowed to determine the choices people make. Under compatibilism, this corruption determines a person’s choices, but Calvinists claim these are still free choices.
All this is under the control of God who can execute His decrees by intervening to prevent certain actions or not intervening in order that people be free to carry out their sin.
You’re free to make any choice, as long as it’s the one choice that has already been chosen for you to make. This is how Calvinists gather followers. Just re define words like freedom to mean something that nobody else means when they say that word. Kind of like mushroom farming. Keep everyone in the dark and feed them dung.
I like to think of it as a kind of “shape-shifting” except with words.
Calvinist’s are experts at shifting semantic weights – the same way the money changes of Jesus’ day were experts at shifting the weights on their scales with unsuspecting customers.
Here “weights” is a metaphor for “definitions”.
Calvinist language is full of words whose definitions can be shifted in order to deceive by semantic subtleties.
Calvinists are mentored in this language by those they look up to – thus they don’t perceive their language as dishonest.
ww writes, “You’re free to make any choice, as long as it’s the one choice that has already been chosen for you to make.”
It is the choice that you want to make. While there are other options you could choose, this is the one you want. It is God’s prerogative to use the free actions of people to accomplish His purposes – e..g, using Pharaoh, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, Pilate, the Romans, etc. – even yourself. As we see in Isaiah 10, the Assyrians act according to their desires. When God provides unfettered access to Israel, the Assyrians take full advantage of the opportunity – and then God punishes them for doing so.
To be consistent with your theology, you would have to say that those desires were also caused by God, so that is no excuse whatsoever. Sure , God used the Assyrians for example, because they were available. That doesn’t mean that God had no other options. It doesn’t mean that he ordained their sin. Because you have the decree coming first, you have to conclude that God is the ultimate cause of everything. Which makes him directly responsible for every sin.
ww writes, “To be consistent with your theology, you would have to say that those desires were also caused by God,”
The question now is how were they caused by God. God made man is His image giving man a sound mind by which man could gather information and make sound decisions. Then Adam ate the fruit and the mind of man was corrupted. The man was now enslaved to sin and sinful desires naturally expressed themselves out of a sinful nature and corrupt mind. God does not have to help people think sinful desires nor encourage they to sin – such is within the natural abilities of people because of the the way God made them.
Then, “God used the Assyrians for example, because they were available. That doesn’t mean that God had no other options.”
They had been available for some time. The Assyrians were eager to invade Israel all the time – they probably dreamed about it every night thinking of the riches and slaves that would be theirs – but they could not do anything until God removed His protection over Israel. To say that the Assyrians were “available’ is an understatement. The Assyrians were enslaved to sin – they were not good people nor innocent but heartless and cruel.
“The question now is how were they caused by God.”
It makes no difference. Causing evil is causing evil, no matter the method. God is not evil , neither can he tempt anyone to do evil. So any god who causes sin is not the God of scripture.
Besides the fact that you have already said elsewhere that God rendered Adam’s disobedience certain. The means are irrelivant.
“The Assyrians were enslaved to sin – they were not good people nor innocent but heartless and cruel.”
Which again totally misses the point. Under your system God had one choice, to use the Assyrians. Under any other system, he could have punished his people in any of millions of ways. If the Assyrians had repented of thier evil and turn from their Wicked Ways, he would have utilized another method.
“and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.”
Only in determinism is God locked in to one course of action. God’s decrees are conditional on man’s actions, in many cases, but never under Calvinism. Therefore sin only happens in your system because God causes it to happen.
ww writes, “So any god who causes sin is not the God of scripture.”
Agreed. However, we still read of David, “Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” (2 Samuel 24) We see that Satan was god’s agent to accomplish this, “Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21) Then we read of Eli chastising his sons but, “they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the LORD desired to put them to death.” (1 Samuel 2) Thus, God did not help David nor the sons of Eli allowing them to be ruled by sin for so it was God’s purpose – God had decreed their sin for His purposes.
Then, “Under your system God had one choice, to use the Assyrians. Under any other system, he could have punished his people in any of millions of ways.”
Sure, God could have done it any way He wanted. The choice God made was to use the Assyrians to punish Israel. God made that choice in eternity past.
Then, “If the Assyrians had repented of their evil and turn from their Wicked Ways, he would have utilized another method.”
They could not have done so on their own – God needed to draw them to repentance but God had decreed a different outcome.
Then, “Only in determinism is God locked in to one course of action.”
That is because God can make decisions. Once God made a decision, there was only one course of action. When God created the universe, He already knew the course of action – Adam eats the fruit, be expelled from the garden, the flood destroys mankind, God calls Abraham,….Christ is nailed to the cross….Christ returns.
You continually dance around the simple fact that God’s decree coming before his knowledge of man’s choices nessasarily makes him the sole cause of all evil….
WW:
You know their philosophy makes God the author of all sin…..
And I know their philosophy makes God the author of all sin…..
And anyone using simple logic knows their philosophy makes God the author of all sin…..
But they just wave a magic wand and say…… He is but He isn’t ….Cuz the Bible tells us He isn’t.
Watch MacArthur on stage on youtube….. “They are both true. How? We dont know.”
I dont have a problem with saying how can Christ be God and man, or how can God be in three persons….we don’t know.
We cannot know those things since it is His quality of nature in question. His being.
But the other question is how He works…. and He tells us many hundreds of times, “I did not want you to ….” “I did not expect you to….”
So it is rather Hellenistically-Greek-presumptuous of any person to say “He DID expect all those things since He decreed them!”
What audacity! Mocking the thousands of verses that tell us that He did not plan certain things.
WW writes: “You continually dance around the simple fact that God’s decree coming before his knowledge of man’s choices nessasarily makes him the sole cause of all evil….”
Ah, that is the simple, terrible, unavoidable fact that Calvinism has sought to stuff into the closet since Calvin made it up. 🙂
ww writes, “You continually dance around the simple fact that God’s decree coming before his knowledge of man’s choices nessasarily makes him the sole cause of all evil….”
Why “necessarily”? I don’t see why God’s decrees cannot include secondary causes. An example is the numbering of Israel by David where one Scripture attributes this to God and another to Satan.
“The supralapsarian God is angry, at the beginning of this decree, without a cause (cf. Matt. 5:22), since no mortal has yet sinned, being not yet created; He has imagined for Himself an abstract decree of saving and reprobating prior to a decree to create objects to save and reprobate; and He then forces Himself to decree and proactively render certain that all mortals fall into sin, rebelling against Him and His commands, so that He can assume some semblance of divine anger in order to justify reprobating human beings He created in His own image.”
http://evangelicalarminians.org/arminian-theology-superior-to-calvinism-regarding-gods-decrees/
“From these premises we deduce, as a further conclusion, that God really sins. Because (according to this [supralapsarian] doctrine), He moves [any person] to sin by an act that is unavoidable, and according to His own purpose and primary intention, without having received any previous inducement to such an act from any preceding sin or demerit in man. From the same [supralapsarian] position we might also infer that God is the only sinner. For man, who is impelled by an irresistible force to commit sin (that is, to perpetrate some deed that has been prohibited), cannot be said to sin himself [or from his own willing since it was God’s irresistible will, decreed from eternity past, that the person should sin exactly as he or she commits sin].9″Arminius concludes
Thanks for this post WW!!!
I hadn’t see it that way before – but it is quite logical!
Confirming again
1) Calvinism’s greatest weakness is how unethical it is – which is discerned by sufficient logical scrutiny
2) In order to camouflage this weakness Calvinists rely upon magical-logic forwarded by deceptive language
3) The character of Calvin’s god is more reflective of Greek deities then it is of the God of scripture.
4) Calvin’s god is bi-morphic and dualistic – appearing in both benevolent and malevolent form like Zeus and Pan.
5) Everything in Calvinism – including salvation – is bi-morphic (i.e., characterized by a good/evil dualism).
All of these are tell-tale signs of a Christianity synchronized with Gnostic-NeoPlatonism.
Thanks, I think this is one of the clearest articles I’ve seen on the subject. Why is it that it’s so hard to find the arminian perspective online? If you search for God’s decrees, you will come up with many articles by Calvinists and only the odd one here and there giving an alternate view.
and in response to Truthseekers post below (there doesn’t seem to be a reply tab) I would say Amen, and isn’t it interesting that the logic you put forward here is exactly what most people say or think when first encountering Calvinisms darker side? I think there is an almost instinctive reaction of ” What? That can’t be right, because it makes God evil.” But, then, many will be won over by assurances that it really doesn’t mean that, and you should just embrace the mystery and submit, because it’s Biblical and unavoidable if God is sovereign. It’s just not so. Once you realize that sovereignty doesn’t mean meticulous control, it all falls into place and we can rejoice in knowing God really does hate evil.
WW writes “. . . isn’t it interesting that the logic you put forward here is exactly what most people say or think when first encountering Calvinisms darker side? I think there is an almost instinctive reaction of ” What? That can’t be right, because it makes God evil.” But, then, many will be won over by assurances that it really doesn’t mean that, and you should just embrace the mystery and submit, because it’s Biblical and unavoidable if God is sovereign.”
That is EXACTLY how we were suckered in! ‘Oh, this great guy doesn’t push the ugly Calvinist stuff, he thinks just as we do about God!’ And perhaps, perhaps he did. As a young lady who grew up in the church alongside my own daughters recently said, ‘Something changed over the years. It is not the church we first attended.’
Perhaps this young pastor had been draw in by the exact same process. And it was only after he dug in deeper, and began partaking of the inevitable poison of genuine Calvinist philosophy, that it seeped into his teaching. I honestly don’t know. I go back and forth between thinking he is blind and thinking he is wickedly deceptive. All I know is that the semantic tricks were in perpetual use, and words came to have whatever meaning he desired. I remember thinking, early on when my doubts about Calvinism began to grow, that Calvinist theology inevitably, if embraced, made one schizophrenic – because the God it depicts is schizophrenic. I sometimes wonder if the inability to see the logical inconsistency, the complete blindness to the cruel, evil nature of Calvinism’s God is not essential, part of the built in defense mechanisms of our brain, in order to keep those who have imbibed the Kool-aid from going mad with despair at what their system depicts. Most cannot face the truth until they have escaped its meaningful hold upon them.
Would you agree that Calvin is a trained – who became an amateur theologian?
As such he learned how to use deceptive lawyer-speak.
BTW, frequently one has to go to the email links to post a reply.
So much of what you three (WW, TS00, and br.d) say is accurate.
In the country where I serve, I saw a young man go from healthy spiritual life (knowing nothing of Calvinism) to rabid YRR Calvinist (even grew the beard!) in about 8 months.
It is not willful deception. It is a series of tricky questions and of course the regular accusation of “oh so you are a universalist, huh?”
It is a progression: …..if this is true….then this must be true….then this must be true…..then this must be true….. and voila….in a matter of a few months (with help of blogs, and internet, and 40-50 verses, and no resources for push-back) this young guy (I had baptized him a year before) stands there and tells me that mysteriously EVERY thing that happens has been decreed/ordained/ willed by God….but man is still responsible for all the bad stuff.
He started immediately on his younger (young adult) brother, “This could be your Calvinist moment.”
It is very much like conversion to them. I have no doubt that he would not have asked me to baptize him if he had been further along in this at the time he asked me. He would have “passed over” me and “chose” another person to baptize him. Badooom chii! (couldn’t resist!).
Again, and I have stated this before, all along the way his friends (or unacquainted bloggers) juxtaposed Calvinism to Univseralism, Open Theism, “Pentecostal excess,” the faith movement, health/ wealth movement ….. always pointing to present Calvinists (and historic ones) ….. as a way to say “Come to the stable, reformed, historic, “sure rock” position. Don’t wander out there following those strains and heresies.”
It is a form of security “It can’t be wrong if …….”
FOH, you could be telling our story. Everyone else (Catholics, Liberals, Arminians, Evangelicals, Mainliners, etc.) refuse to accept what the bible teaches. We alone are smart enough, spiritually mature enough and humble enough (ROFLO) to submit to the authority of scripture. Only ever so slowly did the pastor begin to reveal just what he was asking us to submit to – ugh! – and in reality, it was really the demand that we submit to his authority, for scripture means whatever he jolly well says it means. Ultimately, all false teaching in the spiritual realm boils down to false authorities demanding that men bow to their interpretations, rather than studying scripture like a Berean and asking the Spirit to instruct you as to whether or not what you are being taught is ‘so’.
TS00
I am not sure I always interpret Scripture accurately…but I do like to look at Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. He is the God-in-the-flesh that we can see. I repeat and expand this list below inviting others to add to it:
He changes —not immutable,
He has emotions—not impassible,
His will is resisted,
He reconciles —so it must not have been “okay” (why “reconcile” if God has planned it the “un-reconciled” way?),
He responds —out the window that “God does not react to man”,
He is humble and submissive — gone is the control freak,
He does battle against sickness, evil, Satan —gone the idea of a schizophrenic God who is battling His will against His own will,
He is patient —gone is the God who planned every movement… what “patience” would that take?
He is submissive (to the Father, but also earthly authority) — gone again the all-controlling puppet-string-puller,
He is self-sacrificing, lowering Himself to man’s level and lower — He would be accused of having of a “man-centered Gospel,”
He calls all men to Himself (“when I am lifted up I will call all men to myself” “come to me all you who are laden”) —gone the .00005% chosen,
He is personal (“John behold here your mother”) — gone the wooden, unfeeling master,
He puts limits on Himself (“And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.” “O Jerusalem, I would have …but you were not willing) —gone the idea that all that happens is as God has wanted /planned,
He does not force….He weeps,
He says “knock, it will be opened” (invitation to the multitude on the hillside—and all readers),
He does spiritual battle against evil; He doesn’t ordain it,
He shows love and compassion even to those who reject Him; He doesn’t purposely reject most of humanity,
People can argue using their Augustinian / reformed gurus, but the Christ we see in the Word does not fit their descriptions,
ww writes, “Once you realize that sovereignty doesn’t mean meticulous control,..”
By presupposition, of course. It is an assumption non-Calvinists make because they cannot show it to be the case.
I really don’t believe it’s possible to arrive at divine determinism just by reading scripture and praying. It has to be taught. It’s not only counter intuative for any person with a conscience, it also runs counter to all of God’s ” if / then statements, so that a person has to read the Bible through his Calvinist glasses and ignore the Spirits promptings. At the very least, it brings confusion.
WW
That is so true that no one comes to it alone! It has to be taught.
I brought this up many times (in these pages) and our friends assure me that they pieced it all together through simple reading.
The only problem with that idea (oh maybe there is more than one problem!) is that you would only stumble on a reform-ish type verse every 4 months reading at a normal rate. But you would see “I, the Sovereign Lord, never intended to you to……XYZ” every day in simple reading.
No, for sure it has to be taught and all my reformed friends (not raised as, say Dutch Reformed) were eased into —-many on popular sites. Ironically many came in the “Dont waste your life” door—–which is ironic when you think about that challenge!
This topic reminds me of those ink-blot tracts which Christians used to had around in the 1970s.
Do you see the face of Jesus in the ink-blot.
If yes – then the Holy Spirit enabled you to see it.
If no – then you may not be born again.
As you have both been acknowledging – the human mind has to be “re-formed” into embracing the presumption of “Universal Divine Causal Determinism” as unquestionable truth.
Once that is accomplished the Calvinist interprets scripture using the same mental processes one uses to see the face of Jesus in an ink-blot.
The brain is trained to search for specific preconceived patterns within the data.
Whether the data is an ink-blot or scripture – the process of interpretation is the same.
ww writes, “I really don’t believe it’s possible to arrive at divine determinism just by reading scripture and praying.”
I think it pretty clear that the Scriptures say that God is omniscient. You can join Brian on this if you want.
There is no contradiction between God’s omniscience and our Free Will, although some try to confuse the issue by claiming knowledge must mean causation.
This is rhutchin’s “if you don’t believe in Universal Divine Causal Determinism – then you don’t believe in divine omniscience” card.
He’s already shown us that Calvinism’s notion of omniscience is not orthodox – making “decrees” an essential quality of Calvin’s god’s existence and rejecting omniscience as not essential to Calvin’s god’s existence.
In classic orthodox doctrine – divine omniscience is an essential quality of God’s nature.
There is no point in eternity or time in which he does not have full comprehensive omniscience.
Thus he has full comprehensive omniscience logically prior to any decrees he makes.
Rhutchin rejects that by asserting omniscience is logically follow decrees.
Therefore rhutchin’s argument to omniscience is itself faulty.
And, as I just commented in another spot, Rhutchin attempts to ‘hold in tension’ God’s ‘complete’ and ‘absolute control’ of all things, while asserting man’s ‘vulnerability to exploitation’ by some power, unexplainable under God’s ‘absolute control’. Nonsense, utter nonsense.
It is utter nonsense on its face.
But as I explained they feel it better to believe nonsense (calling it compatibalism or “mystery”) then to dare to consider the alternatives. Too scary outside the safe walls of “reformed orthodoxy.”
ts00 writes, “Rhutchin attempts to ‘hold in tension’ God’s ‘complete’ and ‘absolute control’ of all things, while asserting man’s ‘vulnerability to exploitation’ by some power, unexplainable under God’s ‘absolute control’. Nonsense, utter nonsense.”
Actually, we have a good example in Satan’s involvement in getting David to number Israel. As God exercises absolute control over all things, no entity (man or spirit) can act other than as subordinate to God.
br.d writes, “In classic orthodox doctrine – divine omniscience is an essential quality of God’s nature.
There is no point in eternity or time in which he does not have full comprehensive omniscience.
Thus he has full comprehensive omniscience logically prior to any decrees he makes.
Rhutchin rejects that by asserting omniscience is logically follow decrees.”
Not really. The classic orthodox doctrine says that the source of God’s omniscience is a mystery. Calvinism went a step further and said that God’s omniscience is derived from His decrees and does so logically. I don’t see anyone arguing differently.
br.d writes, “In classic orthodox doctrine – divine omniscience is an essential quality of God’s nature.
There is no point in eternity or time in which he does not have full comprehensive omniscience.
Thus he has full comprehensive omniscience logically prior to any decrees he makes.
Rhutchin rejects that by asserting omniscience is logically follow decrees.”
rhutchin responds
Not really. The classic orthodox doctrine says that the source of God’s omniscience is a mystery.
br.d
Irrelevant red herrring.
The point has nothing to do with the SOURCE of any of God’s attributes – just those attributes that are essential to his nature.
You’re assertion that omniscience is the byproduct of decrees or logically follows decrees stipulates a point in eternity or time in which God did not have omniscience – prior to his decrees to create the world. A radical position which rejects the orthodox doctrine – but understandable if ones attempt is to always affirm Calvinism.
ww writes, “There is no contradiction between God’s omniscience and our Free Will, although some try to confuse the issue by claiming knowledge must mean causation. ”
That’s what Calvinism claims, also.
ww writes, “There is no contradiction between God’s omniscience and our Free Will, although some try to confuse the issue by claiming knowledge must mean causation. ”
Rhutchin writes: “That’s what Calvinism claims, also.”
At the risk of sounding childish, one is very, very tempted to merely state ‘Liar, liar pants on fire’ to such absurdly false claims which have been exposed for the falsity they are here again and again and again. Ignoring all of the carefully laid out examinations of his faulty logic and contradictory claims, Rhutchin repeatedly resorts to:
‘Tis so!’
ts00 writes, “At the risk of sounding childish, …”
You can engage the compatibilist argument anytime you want. I think everyone agrees that God’s knowledge of outcomes does not bring those outcomes to pass.
I know you claim knowledge must mean causation, funny how the early church fathers all missed that. Or could it be that they didn’t let pagan influences into their view of God?
ww writes, “I know you claim knowledge must mean causation…”
Certainly it can. The prophecies in Isaiah concerning the coming Christ will most certainly be brought about by God – especially the impregnation of a virgin. Even Open Theists accept the idea that some of the future has been determined by God. The issue is, then, how much of the future has been determined by God.
Nonetheless, you are not disputing the notion that God is omniscient and knows the future perfectly. Omniscience means that the future is certain and no other outcome is possible – but his is what you seem to argue against.
Rhutchin writes: “Nonetheless, you are not disputing the notion that God is omniscient and knows the future perfectly. Omniscience means that the future is certain and no other outcome is possible – but his is what you seem to argue against.”
I am sure it has been explained hundreds of times, but Calvinism asserts a very false, set in stone, necessary unfolding of future events, which does not, nay, cannot allow for genuine, free choice of mortal men. Many hold to various theories of how God, unlike any other being, can know with certainty future choices of not yet existing people in not yet existing circumstances. We can only theorize, because omniscience, like omnipresence and omnipotence, is utterly foreign and mostly incomprehensible to mere men.
Calvinism asserts that in order for God to be omniscient he must ordain and control all future events meticulously, that is, in order to know all things he must meticulously control all things. Other philosophies, particularly those Christian philosophies that aver to scripture’s assertions that men are offered free choices for which they are held accountable, have theorized that God is able to know that which, in real time on earth, from a human perspective, is neither determined or necessary. In other words, the free choices of men are real, not illusory, and they genuinely influence and affect the events and flow of history. This does not deny or prevent God’s ability to foresee and work into his overall plan the as yet unmade choices which he foreknows, but does not predetermine.
In this view, every choice a man will ever make is a genuine, meaningful choice. It has not been predetermined and secretly necessitated by God. It has, however been foreknown and secretly worked into God’s marvelous plan and purpose to turn all things, even the most evil intentions of men, toward a better, fruitful purpose. No believer, as far as I understand, is suggesting that God is ever caught by surprise, or that he is bewildered, outsmarted or in any way out of his depth in bringing to pass his overarching purpose of restoring his creation to the good and beautiful state in which he created it.
There is no action, no choice, no amount of evil done by men that can thwart God or his long-term plan, even while mortal men are frightened, bewildered and sorrowful at the evil that, for the short term, reigns upon the earth. The suffering servant can endure the present and painful evil, knowing that his God will one day redeem and restore all things, just as he has promised.
When scripture asserts that God sits in the heavens and laughs, it is not asserting that God thinks man’s wickedness is ‘humorous’; rather, it is the preposterous vanity of men who believe they can do what ever they want without consequence, or imagine they can actually outsmart or thwart God that astounds and amuses him. I also tend to believe that when scripture speaks of God ‘crushing’ this or that, it is not referring to the destruction of individual men as much as the destruction of their wicked, self-seeking plans and the tyrannies they inflict upon others. God does and will ‘crush’ every tyranny, oppression, injustice and evil until, some glorious day, all men will see and reject the destructiveness that sin and rebellion produce. Nonetheless, he offers – even to the vilest offender – pardon for former wicked deeds should the evildoer repent, that is, hate and turn from his evildoing.
All of this destroying and redeeming God does, and will continue to do, without the knowledge, permission or assistance of the wicked, who resist and reject his good and perfect will. The best attempts of evil demons and men, including war, disease, social mayhem and fear-mongering will not bring about the total corruption of God’s good creation as intended. Nor does this require God to either ordain or approve the wicked actions of evil men, but merely foreknow and redeem them. God can take the most wicked intentions of men and turn them to good purposes, as the death of His beloved Son most fully demonstrates. Nor should we be misled into believing that God himself plotted and brought to pass the death of Jesus, but that he foreknew and allowed the evil machinations of men to pervert and destroy Truth and Goodness to go forward, fully intending to redeem them into something immeasurably more marvelous, even the salvation of the world.
It is this understanding of God’s goodness, love, faithfulness and power to bring good from the greatest evil that offers us hope and comfort in the short time when we tread the vale of tears, which soon will pass. This hope and comfort is utterly destroyed should we falsely believe that the very evil we so hate and fear is the desire and work of our Maker, who holds our lives and future in his hands. Should we begin to believe that the evil that distorts and perverts all that is good comes from God, we will never be able to look to trust him.
Thus, God has made it very, very clear that he is always and only good, that he desires and works only good, that he neither intends or desires that any man be wicked or perish. These truths are stated and demonstrated history, testified to men in scripture, through the prophets’ warnings, pleas and pronouncements, as well as, most clearly, in the gospel message of the atoning, all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus for all sin.
Howsoever any teaching of men distort the character of God, or the message of Jesus, they are anti-God and anti-Christ.
TS00,
Wow! And I thought your October 5th was the post to end all posts!
You are passionately defending your position and a God who declares Himself Good and Love. If you err, you err in making Him less than all-controlling (some people’s definition of sovereign). In a sense, you if you err it is in making Him “too good.”
They are passionately defending their position and a God who declares Himself all-controlling (as their definition of sovereign). If they err, they err in making Him less than all-good. In a sense, if they err it is in making Him “the origin and sustainer of all evil.”
ts00 writes, “Many hold to various theories of how God, unlike any other being, can know with certainty future choices of not yet existing people in not yet existing circumstances. ”
There are three basic theories:
1. God knows the future because He decrees the future;
2. God knows the future because He is able to look into the future to observe what people choose to do; and
3. It is a mystery how God knows the future.
People who subscribe to #3 will say something like you did, “We can only theorize, because omniscience, like omnipresence and omnipotence, is utterly foreign and mostly incomprehensible to mere men.”
“we will never be able to look to trust him” should read “we will never be able to trust him”. Sorry for typos!
rhutchin has his version of omniscience which entails a point in eternity/time in which there is none (logically prior to decrees) to create the world. He could just as easily assert a point in eternity/time in which his god had no omnipotence and no existence (logically) prior to decrees. (as all of those are “essential” attributes in orthodox doctrine) But of course that would be just a little too obviousness. 😀
br.d writes, “his version of omniscience which entails a point in eternity/time in which there is none (logically prior to decrees) to create the world.”
No, it gives God the ability to make decisions. However God comes to make a decision, that decision is knowledge. It also entails a logical order such that God cannot know what He decides until He decides. Calvinists will then argue that we cannot find a point in eternity past where God decides to do X (e.g., create the universe, etc.) as He has always known what He has decided.
br.d writes, “his version of omniscience which entails a point in eternity/time in which there is none (logically prior to decrees) to create the world.”
rhutchin
No, it gives God the ability to make decisions.
br.d
Making decisions is another red herring:
You asserted Calvin’s god’s omniscience (logically) follows his decrees to create the world. This means that he GAINS knowledge from the decrees that he didn’t have (logically) prior to the decrees. Which is another way of saying he LEARNS as a byproduct of decrees.
Back to the basic principle of logical priority – if Calvin’s god’s knowledge logically follows his decrees then he existed at a point in eternity/time without omniscience (prior to the decrees) which rejects the orthodox doctrine that omniscience is an attribute ESSENTIAL to divine existence.
Rhutchin writes:
“No, it gives God the ability to make decisions.”
This is where, were I Rhutchin, I would accuse Rhutchin of being an Open Theist. 😉 Apparently, God did not know all things concerning the future from eternity past, but was ‘making decisions’ or responding to something other than his own meticulous determination to do that which he had eternally intended to do. Brian appears gentlemanly enough to let him into the fold. 🙂
TS00
…..yes….. as Calvinists say “No, it gives God the ability to make decisions.”
Perfect! Welcome to the God-makes-decisions group.
Next question….. why?
Why are there decisions to make? Based on what? What has changed since God created a world where humans have say-so?
Well…. the answer to that is found thousands of times in the Bible….
The Sovereign Lord says ….. “If you do this, I will do this….” “If you don’t do this, I won’t do that….” “If I tell you I am going to XYZ and you _______ then I will relent from XYZ and not do it.”
Here is a good one that deals with the Potter (same Potter as in Romans 9, a very non-Calvinist chapter!!)
Jer 18:7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
Great verse!
The Calvinist will equivicate on the term “I will relent”
So that it looks like
1: Calvin’s god decrees man infallibly/unavoidably do X
2: Calvin’s god deceives man into believing:
A: Calvin’s god *CAN* “relent” from what he decreed man infallibly/unavoidably do
B: The falsehood that man *CAN* DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god decreed man infallibly/unavoidably do
C: The falsehood that in Calvin’s world man *CAN* perform a “morally significant action” (as defined by Alvin Plantinga – a morally significant action is one that occurs when one CAN DO OTHERWISE.) A state of affairs that is logically negated by Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
FOH writes, “Why are there decisions to make? Based on what? What has changed since God created a world where humans have say-so?”
So, could those decisions have been made in eternity past and now we see God executing those decisions? Jeremiah 18 is a good example of execution. God presents options for people to choose and tells how He will respond under each option. That does not prohibit God knowing the decisions that people will make before those decisions are made as God’s knowledge does not affect the choice made.
Actually, Roger Jer 18 is a self-defeating example of what you are trying to prove. You said – “So, could those decisions have been made in eternity past and now we see God executing those decisions? Jeremiah 18 is a good example of execution.” But Jer 18 is about God making decisions not just executing decisions already made in the past. You would have to say – “God made in a decision before creation not to make certain decisions until after creation, like the one He could make when the possible events of Jer 18 roll around, if they do.” But I’m sure you don’t want to give support to the clearly open view of the future that Jer 18 confirms. 😉
Once God makes those decisions, then He can oversee their execution. Those decisions don’t exist till then. Then don’t exist in some other realm called eternity only to be created again in a supposedly contradictory realm of creation. “Execution” does not mean creating the decision itself… it normally means overseeing the carrying out of a decision made. But Jer 18 speaks of creating the actual decision.
Brian:
What is particularly great about the Jeremiah 18 passage is that it is the same Potter as in Romans 9. Basically God is saying “who are you if I want to now do it a different way?” (in the OT pardon the confessing pagans; in the NT open the Gospel up to Gentiles). But in neither case is this about a single-person, individual issue.
Romans 9 was —of course— one of the passages that took me into Calvinism. Now, I go to it straight away to show others that deterministic Calvinism cannot be accurate!
As I have said before, I can now enjoy the 99% of the Bible that is non-Calvinistic sounding and even enjoy John 6, John 17, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:11 and the other 40-50 verses that Calvinism is built on!
Here’s an overview of Rom 9 that may help bring that passage back into the enjoyable category for you FOH! 🙂
Overview of Romans 9
It would help if the context of Christ-like love for all the lost, demonstrated in Paul from verses 1-3 were recognized before reading the rest. It would also help to note that no verse mentions election before creation in this chapter, but that there is a “seed” that is currently being reckoned (present tense) in verse 6.
It also would help if it wouldn’t be skipped over so easily that God’s purpose in hardening Pharoah was so that God’s Name would spread over ALL the earth in verse 17. And it would be helpful to read each time the phrases “will have mercy” and “will harden” more fully and literally as He will have mercy/harden with whom He “should” and “wants to” have mercy and harden.
That should lead the reader to wonder on whom then “should” God have mercy or on whom does God “want” to have mercy. It is easy to discover that He wants His mercy to be on a people who were not His “people” or “beloved” before. This excludes the idea of a loved elect individual person before creation (besides Christ) being read into verses 25-26. But God will have mercy on those on whom He grants His righteousness which they pursued and came to possess through faith (vs 32). In fact He will have some kind of mercy on all (11:32), giving all a sufficient opportunity to hear His call to them to seek Him (10:18).
The biggest confusion a Calvinist has is in not seeing that God’s sovereign choice of individuals according to Romans 9 was to help fulfill His promise of salvation in Christ, but it did not guarantee their personal salvation or damnation. The prophecy – Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated – did not guarantee the salvation of Jacob or of everyone in Israel, nor did it guarantee the damnation of Esau and of everyone in Edom.
Here is evidence that Esau later became a believer and that any Edomites were welcome to become believers also.
Gen 33:4, 10 But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept…. “No, please!” said Jacob. “If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably.
Deut 23:7-8 Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.
Who does Esau remind you of in 33:4? Hint Luke 15:20.
brianwagner writes, “The prophecy – Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated – did not guarantee the salvation of Jacob or of everyone in Israel, nor did it guarantee the damnation of Esau and of everyone in Edom. ”
The section begins, “it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;” Within that context, we then read that Jacob was chosen (loved) and not Esau (hated).
brianwagner writes, “But Jer 18 is about God making decisions not just executing decisions already made in the past.”
Why not? The form is, If you do X, I will do Y. God has made His decision – it now remains for the person to choose the outcome he wants. I suspect you do the same for the classes you teach – telling students at the beginning of the course, If you do X, Y, and Z, you get an A; if not, you will get something less. So, God does not have to make a decision; He need only execute that decision he has already made.
The issue here is whether God knows how people will choose before they choose. In another Scripture, God has a little discussion with Cain about his attitude and then presents Cain with a choice, yet God already knows how Cain will choose (even you and I could figure out what Cain would do). That God presents people with choices while already knowing how they will choose is done on purpose – e.g., so that people will know how they choose and will have no complaint at judgment.
You need to read Jer 18:11 again. God is not just saying what He will do if Israel responds a certain way, as if He has only one set of pre-thought out choices to go with. He clearly says that He is making plans (creating them), not just following or executing previously made plans.
The imperfect tense in Hebrew for “shaping” and consecutive perfect for “devising” in verse 11 “Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you” both concur that these are not predetermined things or else God is lying and should have clearly said – “I have fashioned… I have devised…”
I know you have no problem, Roger, denying clear meaning in Scripture when it doesn’t support your determinism. So I probably won’t respond to you attempt to say God didn’t really mean He was making decisions not previously made.
Brian:
Here is more from Isaiah 5
1 I will sing for the one I love
a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside.
2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones
and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
but it yielded only bad fruit.
3 “Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and people of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?
5 Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled.
6 I will make it a wasteland,
neither pruned nor cultivated,
and briers and thorns will grow there.
I will command the clouds
not to rain on it.”
7 The vineyard of the Lord Almighty
is the nation of Israel,
and the people of Judah
are the vines he delighted in.
And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed;
for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.
————————————-
The vineyard is Israel/ Judah.
What more could He do? “What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it?”
The Sovereign Lord did His part…..
But When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?
—————— This is not the only passage in the Bible that says that “God expected to see…” but saw something different.
None of these passages make any sense in determinist-Calvinism. Just more passages to (a) ignore, (b) go in circles around, or (c) declare mystery!
Is 5:4 is one of my favorites also, FOH! God’s intention was clearly stated, and that His purpose was thwarted by man’s rebellion was also clearly stated, which leads to the only logical conclusions that all things are not predetermined and that God is willing and able to suffer loss for the sake of demonstrating and freely experiencing true love with us, which is His highest purpose.
Brian:
I am so glad that you used the word “thwarted”.
I think the only times I ever used that word “thwarted” was to challenge an unsuspecting target “You think you can thwart the will of God?!!!”
Of course that will put fear in their eyes! Who are they to “thwart with will of God!” I bet it has been used by a young buck or two in these pages.
But as high-road, spiritual as that may sound (and show our good intentions toward God) it just does not hold up in Scripture.
There are just way too many places (hundreds!) in Scripture where we see this formula… “I The Sovereign Lord (add Mighty one of Israel, or king of the Armies of Israel, to make sure)…. did not tell you to X…. but you did it…”
Yes indeed, man thwarts God will in the Word.
Only theologians, who demand that they be the guardians of truth, will superimpose their presupposition of what God “must be” over the authority of so many hundreds of clear passages.
I do believe in a hierarchy within the divine will… God wills that His will for many things be able to be thwarted, rejected, or freely accepted and followed.
The false professions of determinism only substantiate His will for conditional things to exist and His willingness to permit such errors as determinism to continue until His ultimate will is fulfilled in justice, after man has freely made his decision to accept or reject God’s love and mercy.
Rhutchin writes:
“So, could those decisions have been made in eternity past and now we see God executing those decisions? Jeremiah 18 is a good example of execution. God presents options for people to choose and tells how He will respond under each option. That does not prohibit God knowing the decisions that people will make before those decisions are made as God’s knowledge does not affect the choice made.”
In other words, exactly as has been so often suggested, Calvinism’s God is toying with people, disingenuously giving the false impression that men can make a real ‘either/or’ choice, when in reality, God has predetermined, ordained and will bring to pass whatever it is ‘He’ has long ago chosen ‘the choice’ will be.
One might, if one was inclined to think logically, question why God feels it necessary to deceive men into thinking they have genuine free-will choices, or can actually perceive, think or perform a genuine, independent thought or action, even in direct opposition to God’s desire and will. Why is Calvinism’s God unwilling to claim the credit the system insists he is due, for originating, ordaining, controlling and bringing to pass whatsoever comes to pass in his world? Why does he play games with these puppets he has fashioned, warning them, pleading with them and threatening punishment for ‘disobedience’ upon the feeble toys dangling from his controlling strings?
I guess it gets lonely being the only free, intelligent being in town, so one imagines a world in which meaningful events can actually take place. Or, of course, one could actually create one.
William Lane Craig makes the same observation.
In Universal Divine Causal Determinism, (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god appears to be the only being functioning as an “agent”. All created being’s functionality is limited to that of being “instrument” – like a stick is used to move a rock, or a robot-vacuum-cleaner is used to vacuum the floor.
Apparently Calvin’s god must program his robots to be deceived with a false perception of “do otherwise” – for the sake of some kind of sovereignty. Apparently in Calvinism divine sovereignty requires deceived creatures. :-]
ts00 writes, “…genuine free-will choices…”
Could you give an example of a “genuine free-will choice” and explain what you think makes it genuinely free?
Thank you, TS00 for the compliment. I believe Roger might have confused “omniscience” with settled “foreknowledge” if he used the word “omniscience” as coming logically after God’s decree. The accusation BrD made of God “learning” still would stand, since a change is still taking place in God’s knowledge. It is funny to me how the words “logical order” is used by Calvinists and others to describe God’s pre-creation activity. Wouldn’t that mean what they really believe happened was therefore “illogical”, that is, everything happened non-sequentially in God? So they want us to believe and profess something about God that is illogical? 😉
Calvinism, imo, teaches that omniscience in God of all Natural knowledge is eternal (including all possible things to know), then logically God somehow decrees all things that will be real, and then His omniscience changes in respect to now including a foreknowledge of all things settled into the future forever.
Aminianism and Molinism do not fare any better, however, in my view, when it comes to omniscience and foreknowledge. Molinism takes a middle road that still has God decreeing a future that somehow includes man’s free-will decisions before man’s will is even created. Calvinism basically has the same choice and same outcomes, but just more logically denies that freedom of will can exist for predetermined choices. In Molinism the completed world that God chooses has all of God’s predetermined choices for Himself already made which limit man’s choices to only “one” each time, which would be no longer a free choice at all, imo.
Arminianism also has God knowing all the choices of man’s will as being made before that will is created… but they just punt and try to hide behind the premise – “foreknowledge is not causation” – as if that is a backdoor escape from God being the author of all man’s sinful choices. But somebody had to “write” that completed foreknowledge in God’s mind before creation. It did not just come to Him to observe. And He was the only author available write before creation… thus making Him the “author” of all future sins. Foreknowledge is not causation, but certainly, foreknowledge guarantees that the future event will be caused necessarily. Whoever caused that certainty of that foreknowledge is behind the other causes leading to that future event, like a mob boss who writes the plans and finances the certain murder of a competitor.
Brian:
I have come to appreciate your gentle way of explaining what you feel the Scripture teaches about God, the future, and His knowledge of it.
This position of course will be labeled as heresy by some. Any new approach is taken that way (ask Wycliffe, Tyndale, Hus).
I remember well when tongues/gifts were labeled (and still are) as “demonic” by many.
No doubt Grudem (Systematic theologian and Calvinist) has taken a lot of heat for saying the gifts still exist today. I know that Piper is getting flogged by MacArthur for being “open to the gifts.”
And recently-passed Sproul and MacArthur (who spoke at his memorial) went to the mat debating infant-baptism. If you listen to that debate, MacArthur dismantles every piece of unbiblical premise that Sproul makes…. and yet….. Sproul remains a pillar.
Reminds me of Calvin. He could millstone-river-dunk (or was it green-wood-burn?) people that disagreed with him, and yet we name colleges and seminaries and ‘isms after him!!
Anyway, your gentle approach to handling all the passages where God says “Now I know…..” or “God relented” “God changed His mind…” will be labeled heresy by some (as Luther was told to recant)……. but I have respect on how you come to the Scripture and let it speak to you….. as opposed to coming to the Scripture and speaking into it.
Thank you FOH for your kind words! Do you mean there is nowhere in the Scripture that says “tongues” are demonic?! 😉 Of course, all things that present themselves as “signs” from God must be tested, for there are indeed many deceptive things in this world that pretend to be godly.
All groups have their “sacred cows” that need to be sacrificed, imo. In my circle its the KJV only, the title “senior pastor”, and the declaring of all who pray the “sinners prayer” as immediately “saved” that need to be put on the altar and given up. But it is always easier to point out the “sacred cows” in the circles of other Christians that need sacrificing! 😉
I have a suspicion Piper is forwarding Pentecostalism for simply pragmatic reasons – that’s where the statistical increase is occurring.
I understand Piper is also embracing Chrislam – I suspect for the same exact reasons.
Brian:
Some good examples of God’s knowledge …
Ex 13:17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, “If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.” 18 So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt ready for battle.
The point is clear (but not as much) in the Calvinist-ESV (notice the archaic word “lest”…..cuz for Calvinists archaic is good)
17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near. For God said, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.”
——————— The point of this and many, many passages like it, is that God is saying (a) they “might” do something (which sounds like He is not even sure), and (b) there could have been another option (i.e. I could have led them the short route, but in light of their weak situation, I won’t do that—- but I could have.”).
The ultimate point is that the Bible is full of examples where God Himself tells us that He is operating in real time.
Like when He told King Saul “I would have made your family rule for a long time….but you did not obey.” There is no way that hundreds of passages like these make any sense in a determinist philosophy.
Many times I have gone looking for a good determinist explanation of these hundreds of passages. The only weak ones offered (and believe me—not many even try), go round and round in circles ending in some sort of “it’s all true” fashion (which we see demonstrated on these pages so well).
Great example, FOH! Thanks. The first best example, imo, is Gen 2:19 where God brings all the animals to Adam “to see” what Adam would name them and then He let that be their names. God certainly knew in His infinite understanding all the choices Adam had or could think up, but God could not know beforehand exactly which would be chosen for each without having planned beforehand to manipulate each choice down to only one in Adam’s mind. Should anyone really think God that played with Adam’s thoughts that way!
brianwagner writes, “…but God could not know beforehand exactly which would be chosen for each without having planned beforehand to manipulate each choice down to only one in Adam’s mind.”
Or, given that God made Adam and knew him perfectly, He would not have to manipulate Adam’s mind.
rhutch writes:
Or, given that God made Adam and knew him perfectly, He would not have to manipulate Adam’s mind.
br.d
Here is a good example of a Calvinist hiding behind the camouflage of Molinism – which he would otherwise attack. :-]
br.d writes, “Molinism – which he would otherwise attack.”
I don’t see a conflict between Molinism and Calvinism.
br.d writes, “Molinism – which he would otherwise attack.”
rhutchin responds
I don’t see a conflict between Molinism and Calvinism.
br.d
Here is where the Calvinist becomes two-faced without the slightest discernment of the condition.
Previously this Calvinist wrote – “Molinism has nothing to do with Calvinism”
And since this Calvinist knows that Molinism rejects Theological Determinism in order to assert Libertarian Freedom of the will.
So additionally, by this current statement he is saying he sees no conflict with Libertarian Freedom of the will.
All of which he would otherwise attack.
Thank you for providing another example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-speak rhutchin. 😀
I find myself oddly sympathetic with the Calvinist, in spite of their greased pig approach to doing theology. The simple biblicist understands the goodness of God, the fullness of his love and the genuineness of his offer of forgiveness and life.
Contrast that with the uncomfortable dance the consistent Calvinist must ever perform to remain in conformity with his illogical theological system, try to appear in agreement with the opposite truths conveyed in scripture, all while confounded onlookers shake their heads in bemusement, saying, ‘You believe WHAT?’
Someone with know-how could make a spreadsheet of all of the assertions made by the residing Calvinist here, and I reckon would be amazed to see the many sides of Calvinism presented. As with a politician, every word must be carefully parsed, in hopes that no one examine them too carefully against words spoken on other days. It really is an unenviable lot to be always on the defense; whereas those not swaddled by historical, orthodox creeds and confessions can freely discuss, search, examine and follow scripture, wherever Truth and the Spirit leads.
Good points!
It reminds me of the – so called “racist trees” – current events on the news lately at Palm Springs, California.
I watched an advocate of those who want to cut the trees down – claiming they are “racist”.
When faced with logical arguments – one could see the advocate was all over the place – doing rhutchin’s greased-pig act.
Such is the nature of contrived realities. :-]
br.d writes, “Molinism rejects Theological Determinism in order to assert Libertarian Freedom of the will.”
The problem is that no one has shown how Molinism is able to do this. People make stuff up and br.d, knowing no better, believes it. It is nice that br.d has to make stuff up to challenge the things I say.
br.d writes, “Molinism rejects Theological Determinism in order to assert Libertarian Freedom of the will.”
rhutchin
December 27, 2017 at 4:05 pm
The problem is that no one has shown how Molinism is able to do this.
rhutchin
December 26, 2017 at 7:24 pm
I don’t see a conflict between Molinism and Calvinism.
br.d
Another great example of how the Calvinist plays out of both sides of the mouth.
Thanks rhutchin another good example 😀
brianwagner writes, ” Whoever caused that certainty of that foreknowledge is behind the other causes leading to that future event, like a mob boss who writes the plans and finances the certain murder of a competitor.”
God has no competitors, so we need to edit your example. The person would be under the mob boss and subordinate to him. Thus, the mod boss determines what business activities will be tolerated (e.g., prostitution and loans but not drugs) and gives his subordinates freedom to pursue those activities while providing 25% of revenue to the mob boss. If the person disobeys the mod boss, he faces judgment.
Actually, the mob boss creates the competitors and then wipes them out at his own whim… He wrote the whole script and finances it all according to determinism! The fantasy of giving any “freedom” is just that… a fantasy.
Well said! Thanks Brian :-]
brianwagner writes, “the mob boss creates the competitors…”
So, who/what are we to think are God’s competitors??
Then, “The fantasy of giving any “freedom” is just that… a fantasy.”
Not if freedom only requires that one’s choices be consistent with their desires. You make choices every day that reflect your desires – even though you are unaware that they are determined. For the most part, you could explain a rationale for your choices by saying, “I did such and such for this reason…”
Brian and all….
Expect to see a lot of non-nonsensical, rocking-horse, tail-chasing on this topic.
When we read in God’s word that He is making a decision or changing His mind….or relenting. He tells us clearing in the passage the reason (most often it is what man does/ decides). In the passage and the context He tells us why and when He decides.
He is not expecting us to “defend His honor,” or re-define His right to create the way He wants…. by leaving Scripture and introducing some Greek ideas of a static God that decided all things beforehand. Then, the Greek idea tells us that in addition to deciding it all beforehand He makes it LOOK like He is deciding in real time…. because of their actions…. which is of course deceptive to any reader.
What arrogance to take hundreds and hundreds of clear passages where God makes a decision, changes His mind, or relents and say “We know better than what it says— and it doesnt mean what it says.”
“We know that God____________________ (insert Greek understanding of deity here).”
rhutchin is all over the place as usual.
He writes like an Arminian one minute, a Molinist the next minute, an Open Theist the next minute.
Only to attack variations of the same exact assertions the next minute.
All portrayed as Calvinism of course! 😀
Calvinists are pragmatists – they will assert whatever argument will work for the temporary moment.
ts00 writes, “Apparently, God did not know all things concerning the future from eternity past, but was ‘making decisions’ or responding to something other than his own meticulous determination to do that which he had eternally intended to do.’
The issue of God’s omniscience with regard to His creation is not in doubt. When God created the universe in Genesis 1, He knew the future from beginning to end. The issue is whether God is omniscient with regard to everything outside the creation of our universe – specifically, can God have an original thought.
rhutchin
The issue of God’s omniscience with regard to His creation is not in doubt. When God created the universe in Genesis 1, He knew the future from beginning to end.
br.d
Notice how the language in this statement strategically straddles the fence – both affirming and denying the assertion that Calvin’s god’s omniscience -quote “logically follows his decrees”.
rhutchin
The issue is whether God is omniscient with regard to everything outside the creation of our universe – specifically, can God have an original thought.
br.d
Leave it to a Calvinist to assert with absolute unquestionable knowledge – how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! 😛
br.d writes, “Back to the basic principle of logical priority – if Calvin’s god’s knowledge logically follows his decrees then he existed at a point in eternity/time without omniscience (prior to the decrees) which rejects the orthodox doctrine that omniscience is an attribute ESSENTIAL to divine existence.”
That raises the issue of whether God can have an original thought while being omniscience. I think God can have an original thought.
br.d writes, “Back to the basic principle of logical priority – if Calvin’s god’s knowledge logically follows his decrees then he existed at a point in eternity/time without omniscience (prior to the decrees) which rejects the orthodox doctrine that omniscience is an attribute ESSENTIAL to divine existence.”
rhutchin
That raises the issue of whether God can have an original thought while being omniscience. I think God can have an original thought.
br.d
Here is where the Calvinist reverts to an unending stream of ad-hoc red-herrings looking for an escape path. First he appeals to “the source” of knowledge, then to “making determinations” now to “original thought”. *AS-IF* the orthodox doctrine of omniscience ruled out the divine mind having thoughts that “originate” from his own mind.
This is a great example of how much of Calvinism is simply invention. 😀
Rhutchin writes: “That raises the issue of whether God can have an original thought while being omniscience. I think God can have an original thought.”
Here a new euphemism is introduced, to explain how Calvinism’s God can do entirely ‘new things’, in spite of being fettered with a supposedly meticulously predetermined closed system whereby all things were formerly predetermined, ordained and established as necessarily future events. One simply has to introduce different semantic symbols, and the impossible becomes possible. Astounding, the magic ‘craft’ of Calvinistic doublespeak!
Yes – too funny!!
rhutchin did his “look at that squirrel up there!” 3 times in a row on this one.
I still think God gave mankind Calvinists as a form of entertainment. 😀
ts00 writes, “…in spite of being fettered with a supposedly meticulously predetermined closed system whereby all things were formerly predetermined, ordained and established as necessarily future events.”
This applies to the universe God created in Genesis 1 or anything else God might create. I don’t think anyone really knows anything beyond that. What is your issue here??
ww writes, “Once you realize that sovereignty doesn’t mean meticulous control,..”
rhutchin responds
By presupposition, of course. It is an assumption non-Calvinists make because they cannot show it to be the case.
br.d
Here we have the logical fallacy of proving a negative as proof of nothing. 😀
Catholics use this argument to defend apparitions of Mary appearing at Fatima – “you cannot show it to be the case that she didn’t”
Rhutchin writes: “ww writes, “You continually dance around the simple fact that God’s decree coming before his knowledge of man’s choices nessasarily makes him the sole cause of all evil….” Why “necessarily”? I don’t see why God’s decrees cannot include secondary causes.”
Of course, WW did not suggest, as well you know, that God did not or cannot include ‘secondary means’. It is a little game that is played with the term ‘secondary causes’, a fake; the pretense that it is an alternative to God being the ‘sole cause’ of evil. What this little game seeks to hide is that all ’causes’, be they primary, secondary, thirdary, quarterdary ad infinitum, are all, nonetheless determined, ordained and brought to pass ‘solely’ by the desire and decree of God. It does not matter the tiniest bit who or what God employs to do his bidding – all created matter still only does his bidding, unless one grants a genuine freedom of choice that is not controlled or determined by God. The very freedom that is not permitted under consistent Calvinism.
It does not matter how God brings things to pass. If all things come to pass according to an eternal decree made prior to the creation, God is their ’cause’, whatever means are employed, or how many men he ’causes’ to perform his chosen tasks. If I deliberately ordain and cause a city to be destroyed, it doesn’t matter if I instigate and use a volcano, a hurricane, a tsunami, a meteor or a nuclear bomb – I am the ‘sole’ cause of the destruction. If I indeed have the sole power of say so, to cause or prevent and event, I am its cause, whatever persons or things I create as tools to do my bidding. One can no more blame a man for ‘choosing’ the sin God ordained him to commit than one can blame a tsunami that was orchestrated by, say, powerful electric currents for ‘choosing’ to destroy a city.
It is all semantic games, willful or ignorant.
TruthSeeker writes (concerning Calvinism’s magical appeal to secondary means):
It is all semantic games, willful or ignorant.
Yes I totally agree! It is ALL semantic games.
I don’t think its willful at first.
You’ve heard the saying “bad company corrupts good manners”
I think this is what happens to young people who get lured into Calvinism.
First they are lured into it by its grandiose boastings and its respected persons (which if they were grounded in Paul they would know is religious flesh masquerading as spiritual maturity).
Calvinist leaders deem duplicitous semantic games a necessary-evil in order to increase the herd.
Robert J Lifton calls this process “thought-reform”.
Young Calvinists are milk-fed on Calvinisms (40-50) proof-texts.
And they are also milk-fed with a highly evolved library of duplicitous language tricks.
That is how they can thrive on the stolen bread of religious pride and sophism.
Thus religious pride and sophism (if used to promote/defend Calvinism) are not classified as sins.
br.d., I really would love to see a book or essay, listing all of your sources, etc. describing this process. I’m not sure it would help those who are immersed in the cult, but it might help those who are merely looking into it, or whose brainwashing has begun to loosen and are seeking for truth and understanding.
I know many in this latter category, particularly the young people surrounding my own children, whose parents were not originally Calvinist, yet raised their children in the pea soup of Calvinism. They are looking for resources to explain what they have been under, and to figure out how to really read the bible, and seek the assistance of the Holy Spirit for understanding truth. We do not, I fear, understand their utter confusion; we forget they have never heard the true gospel presented as we did in our formative years.
Converted Calvinists have the benefit of having come to God under a biblical depiction of his true nature, whereas our Calvinist raised children have only ever heard this terrible distortion. Those who ‘adopt’ Calvinism rarely ever fully abandon their former, more biblical understanding of God, however much they mouth the script. They often never truly understand, as the young, still functioning minds of their children eventually grasp, the cruel, fearful God of Calvinism whom one loves because one must.
Hi truthseeker,
Here are a few authors if one is interested in research on “undue influence” as observed within social/religious contexts.
Steven Hassan is heavily focused on how people are easily influenced by “group-socialization” practices.
https://www.amazon.com/Steven-Hassan/e/B000APQYV4
Check out Philip Zimbardo’s work “Stanford Prison Experiment” and “The Lucifer effect” (very eye opening!)
Check out the “Milgram Obedience Experiment”, which proved consistently that 65% of average persons within our societies can be influenced by authority figures to be induced into significant immoral/unethical actions while perceiving themselves as perfectly normal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The classic Solomon Asch’s “Conformity Experiment” proved how easily people’s beliefs can be strategically altered without the person’s awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
I would especially recommend: “Twisted Scriptures” by Mary Alice Chrnalogar
Her beginning chapter is a classic example of how easy it is for a Christian ministry to alter the ethical standards of his congregants – without them being aware of it.
br.d writes, “Young Calvinists are milk-fed on Calvinisms (40-50) proof-texts.”
That are also Scriptural truth – and nobody denies that. So, the non-Calvinist pretends that those truths aren’t relevant.
br.d writes, “Young Calvinists are milk-fed on Calvinisms (40-50) proof-texts.”
rhutchin responds
That are also Scriptural truth – and nobody denies that. So, the non-Calvinist pretends that those truths aren’t relevant.
br.d
This shows us the decree of maturity the typical Calvinist brings to Biblical hermeneutics.
We thank rhutchin for consistently providing examples. :-]
ts00 writes, “What this little game seeks to hide is that all ’causes’, be they primary, secondary, thirdary, quarterdary ad infinitum, are all, nonetheless determined, ordained and brought to pass ‘solely’ by the desire and decree of God.”
OK. You allow that Adam’s sin had an effect that God could decree to be passed on to his children, and then, the inherited sin nature could be the driving force for decisions. Then, God did not have to force or encourage Adam to eat the fruit – Adam had the freedom to choose as he wanted. God need only decree that natural forces play out naturally and then sit back and watch the action.
rutchin writes:
Adam’s sin had an effect that God could decree to be passed on to his children,
br.d
Here the Calvinist seeks to craft deceptive language to paint the picture that Adam’s sin was the SOURCE of Calvin’s god’s decree, while the Calvinist hides the fact that in Calvinism – Calvin’s god and the decree is the SOURCE of Adam’s sin.
Thanks rutchin – keep those examples of Calvinism’s beguiling double-talk coming! 😀
br.d writes, “Here the Calvinist seeks to craft deceptive language to paint the picture that Adam’s sin was the SOURCE of Calvin’s god’s decree,…”
That’s just you misunderstanding the issue. God’s decree is that Adam sin and that the effects of Adam’s sin be inherited by his progeny. I don’t see an issue here.
br.d writes, “Here the Calvinist seeks to craft deceptive language to paint the picture that Adam’s sin was the SOURCE of Calvin’s god’s decree,…”
rhutchin responds
That’s just you misunderstanding the issue. God’s decree is that Adam sin and that the effects of Adam’s sin be inherited by his progeny. I don’t see an issue here.
br.d
Of course you don’t – by this time no one expects you to. :-]
ww writes, “To be consistent with your theology, you would have to say that those desires were also caused by God,”
rhutchin responds
The question now is how were they caused by God. God made man is His image giving man a sound mind by which man could gather information and make sound decisions. Then Adam ate …..etc
br.d
Notice here how the language obfuscated “Universal Divine Causal Determinism”.
The tactic of Calvinist double-speak is to craft statements that can both affirm and deny determinism.
Calvinist statements are designed to be strategically two-faced.
In the article “Theological Determinism”, the Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy comments on the double-speak nature of Calvinist language:
-quote:
“Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is “extended to all that He has created” (The Providence of God. p. 39).
The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.” – end quote
br.d writes, “The tactic of Calvinist double-speak is to craft statements that can both affirm and deny determinism.
Calvinist statements are designed to be strategically two-faced.”
Calvinism is very clear in saying that God decrees everything that happens – this means God has determined everything that happens. Nothing two-faced here. Maybe, you never really grasped what Calvinism says.
br.d
“The tactic of Calvinist double-speak is to craft statements that can both affirm and deny determinism.
Calvinist statements are designed to be strategically two-faced.”
rhutchin
Calvinism is very clear in saying that God decrees everything that happens – this means God has determined everything that happens. Nothing two-faced here. Maybe, you never really grasped what Calvinism says.
br.d
Of course that is what the Calvinist is going to say.
What Calvinism’s -quote “Says” and what is logically entailed in Calvinism are two very different things.
That helps to explain the beguiling double-speak.
Fortunately the SOT101 reader only need read rhutchin’s posts for great examples. 😀
I have good news – there is no such thing as a ‘horrible decree’ of God. God’s love for man is limitless and unrestricted. He truly desires that none perish, which is why he sent his Son to deal with sin, once and for all. Any false teacher who asserts otherwise – even if he has the awful power to murder all who disagree – simply has it wrong. God’s offer of grace to all men is genuine, and no man need perish in his sin, just as scripture declares. Any man can choose to reject this good news and the grace offered – but none need to.
Do not be deceived by the faulty assertions of mere men. There are no ‘horrible’ decrees, damning helpless men to bear the guilt of their father, to pay the price for another man’s sin, committed long before they were born. Read Ezekiel; ditch Calvin. Rejoice, O man, for God sent his Son to deliver the good news of his love and deliverance, which shall be [offered] to all people! Rejoice, O man, that you are loved, and God wants nothing more than for you to believe in his love and accept his offer of free grace.
We all can rejoice and praise our glorious God this marvelous season, confident in the message of his genuine goodness and love toward all men that Jesus declared and demonstrated! Don’t rewrite your favorite Christmas carols, or redefine the precious words of hope that scripture offers. Joy to the world, and Merry Christmas!
You go TS00!
That is why it says “God is patient.” That is why it says “He doesn’t want any to perish.” That is why it says “whosoever will may come!” “come to me all you who labor…” “I am the bread of life” “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.”
Woe to the man who says that Christ is not inviting broken mankind to come and drink!
Woe to the man who says you must agree with my Greek-influenced determinism that says that this “come and drink” was only intended for the 00.15% who do come.
Woe to the man who says you must agree with my Greek-influenced determinism that says that this “come and drink” was only intended for the 00.15% who do come.
br.d
Interesting number! That’s almost exactly the percentage of Calvinism within professing Christianity world-wide.
FOH writes, “Woe to the man who says you must agree with my Greek-influenced determinism that says that this “come and drink” was only intended for the 00.15% who do come.”
Most agree that all do not come. The issue is whether God gives some advantage to those who do come without which they would not have come..
Rhutchin writes: “Most agree that all do not come. The issue is whether God gives some advantage to those who do come without which they would not have come..”
Let us address this issue, shall we? But where you appeal to the words of a mere man, John Calvin, a documented overseer of torture and murder, I appeal to the words of another John, who documents the words and actions of one who did not take others’ lives, but gave his own. A small subset of so-called Christians bow to your authority, and continue to adhere to and proclaim an unispired man’s particular version of Christianity; better called Calvinism, because it is based on the words of ‘Calvin’ rather than ‘Christ’.
I would dare say that most who call themselves Christians claim that the words of John the apostle were inspired by God, thus not one mere man’s opinions. More significantly, unlike the thousands upon thousands of vaunted, multisyllabic words penned by Calvin and his cheerleaders, the inspired apostle sets before us the fairly simple, but critical words of Jesus Christ himself as he explains his mission on earth.
The words of Jesus, to Nicodemus, as he explains how one may enter the kingdom of God:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.” (John 3:14-21)
You see here not the slightest reference to a select chosen few, who alone can come to the light because they have been supernaturally enabled, while the rest ‘cannot’ come because God has not chosen to enable them. This is blatant falsity, pure fabrication, and utterly NOT what the elect Son of God teaches, as revealed in his inspired Word.
Calvin, et al., as you suggest, assert that ‘God gives some advantage to those who do come without which they would not have come’.
Jesus, on the other hand, asserts no such thing. He states quite clearly why some men do not come to God, or believe in the grace that is soon to be revealed: it is ‘because they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil’. Calvin et al. assert that every single man does nothing but evil all of the time, because he has a Totally Depraved nature that hates God. Were this assertion correct, no man could or would come to the light because all are helplessly, Totally Depraved. But wait, Calvin invents a theory; patching together unrelated verses and wrenching them from their intended context and meaning, ‘voila’, he has a new explanation of how men come to God.
I prefer to stick with Jesus’ description.
Men who love evil will not come to the light. Men who do what is true, come to the light. You might note that there is a significant lack of any reference to select men being chosen by God from before the Creation to be supernaturally transformed – that is, to undo the curse God put on them in response to another man’s sin – so that they, and only they become able and desirous of coming to the light. This is not even hinted at here, nor anywhere else in scripture, because it is a false theory manufactured by men.
Now Nicodemus, like all Israelites, would have known quite well the story Jesus referred to, of the serpent that Moses lifted up in the wilderness, and would likely have understood its meaning. The people of Israel had sinned against God, (as usual) and he had sent poisonous serpents among them. All who were stung, which seemed to be many, were sure to die. But God, in his graciousness, provided a way of redemption, a literal salvation from sure death. What was this way?
“And the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.” (Numbers 21:7-9)
Note again, there is no distinction made between men; all who looked upon the serpent – that is, believed in the deliverance that was promised by merely looking upon the serpent – were saved. Those who refused to believe, and to look, it appears to suggest, did surely die. Not a single suggestion is made that some men could look and some could not. No reference to needing to be supernaturally enabled to look; the fairly obvious assumption seems to be that all ‘could’ look, but only some freely chose to do so. No ‘advantage’ was given to any man, enabling him to look and live, that was withheld from others, who God deliberately and determinately chose to die. Once again, that is pure, hideous fabrication.
In the writings of the inspired, not the uninspired, John, Jesus once again refers to this very important concept of ‘lifting up’, saying:
“and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” (John 12:32)
Just as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness in some place in which all could look to it and truly see it – if they so chose – Jesus prophesied that he, too, would be lifted up for all to see. All men have been drawn to God, by virtue of hearing of his sacrificial love for them. This act, like no single other act in all of history, stands as a clarion call to men, acting in such a manner that would naturally draw all who chose to believe it to forgiveness and everlasting life. The inspired John further explains:
“He said this to show by what death he was to die. The crowd answered him, ‘We have heard from the law that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?’ Jesus said to them, ‘The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.’” (John 12:33-36)
Note that the crowd repeats the faulty teaching they have received from false teachers, which Jesus corrects. Note too that Jesus warns the people that unless they believe in the light, walk in the light, and remain in the light, they will be overtaken by darkness. Always, when not distorted to man’s own destruction, scripture is seen to teach that men have choices to make, and that those choices lead to real consequences. Jesus has come, as long ago promised, drawing all men to God. Men can either respond positively to that drawing and come to the light, or they can resist that drawing and be overcome by darkness – the real meaning of Total Depravity.
So, I do most soundly reject the false premises of your faulty teachers, that man is unable to make the choices set before him by God, unable to understand and heed the warnings given by God and unable to believe, as required by God, in order to be approved and redeemed.
Were I such a teacher, I would tremble at Paul’s warning that the wrath of God is being revealed against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. I can think of no more wicked suppression, of no greater truth, than that God loves and desires to save all men who will believe in him, confess their sin, trust in the promised redemption and turn from their wicked ways.
Such men are without excuse, for all that can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Yet, loving their evil deeds, they have suppressed that truth, and exchanged it for a lie, conveniently provided to them by the great Deceiver and enemy of our souls. We are offered, should we choose to believe them, great, terrible lies about horrible decrees that unjustly condemn to eternal punishment men who never had the opportunity to receive life. Because God never intended them to have life; Jesus never died so that they might have life; the Holy Spirit never gave them an ability to hear and come, because God’s salvation was never intended for them.
It is one thing, for the many ignorant so-called Calvinists, who do not really understand these things to march under a standard they do not fully comprehend. It is quite another for those who understand, and have exchanged the truth for a lie. God’s great wrath will indeed fall greatly upon those who withhold the good news of his so great love and offer of salvation, because they wanted to keep it, exclusively, to themselves.
ts00 writes, “You see here not the slightest reference to a select chosen few, who alone can come to the light because they have been supernaturally enabled, while the rest ‘cannot’ come because God has not chosen to enable them.”
How about adding John 6 and John 10 to your analysis. You know the argument on the other side and purposely ignore it. What does that accomplish??
TS00:
Long and thoughtful letter.
You will be answered by “we must look at ALL of Scripture.” Which of course means look at our 40-50 verses….i.e. “see John 6 and John 10.”
The funny thing for me while a Calvinist is that I encountered every day (when I started reading massive chunks of the Bible each day) passages that led me to see that God waits patiently, does not want to judge, takes no delight in the judging of the wicked, and did not plan to torture 98% of humanity. Yet…. I was told to look at these (daily) passages in light of “all of Scripture.”
What? That’s what I AM doing!!
The “all of Scripture” for them meant….. read repeatedly our 40-50 verses and filter “all of Scripture” through them.
It got so tiring to say “the word ‘all’ does not mean ‘all’ …. it only means ‘all kinds’ of men”….. and “God does not mean that…. it only looks to us like He does” or “Christ is not drawing all men, or all would come.” (as if He always got His way!!! See the passage about ‘could not do miracles in that region for their lack of faith.’)
So….. as I have stated….. I began to see if there are good non-Calvinistic responses to the 40-50 verses (how about John 6?!) . And sure enough!!! In context, these verses make great sense—- but not Calvinistic sense.
And…. it sure is easier to look for alternative explanations to 40-50 verses than 10,000!
It is so enjoyable to read the Bible every day saying, “God does mean what it says here…” and ask myself…. “What is God saying about Himself here?”
FOH to ts00, “The “all of Scripture” for them meant….. read repeatedly our 40-50 verses and filter “all of Scripture” through them.”
You now have two methods to apply to your studies. (1) Filter all Scripture through Scripture including 40-50 key verses, thousands of verses and the rest. Or (2) you can take FOH’s advice and pick the verses you like and ignore the rest.
Rhutchin writes: “FOH to ts00, “The “all of Scripture” for them meant….. read repeatedly our 40-50 verses and filter “all of Scripture” through them.”
You now have two methods to apply to your studies. (1) Filter all Scripture through Scripture including 40-50 key verses, thousands of verses and the rest. Or (2) you can take FOH’s advice and pick the verses you like and ignore the rest.”
This is the false dichotomy that false teachers ever resort to. Satan could care less which lie they push, as long as they suppress the truth.
What I, and I believe others like FOH, have discovered is that there is a better way than spending all of one’s time parsing words and debating definitions. False teachers, and those they prey upon, have been doing this for centuries, and where does it get them? Nowhere. They are forever resigned to, and many even seem to enjoy, the game of ‘beat your brother bloody with the bible’.
This is nothing new. When Jesus arrived on the scene, the great masses – ‘the sinners’, as the rulers viewed them – were helplessly tossed about and manipulated by whatever interpretation they were given of ‘The Law’. Indeed, those who were supposed to be teachers and shepherds preferred to be ‘rulers’ and, like modern rulers, seemed to love nothing better than concocting new rules to lay upon the backs of the people – new taxes, new restrictions, new ‘sins’ that were acceptable only days before, but were now ruled ‘unlawful’. A person might drive the exact same speed, only to find what was ‘acceptable’ yesterday is now ‘against the law’. Like ‘that’, new rules and restrictions can be put on people, who have little choice but to obey or face punishment. It is ever the same in a world in which the few rule over the many.
The ceremonial, sacral religion that had been constructed upon the foundation of Moses’ Law in the Israel of Jesus’ day was nothing like the intimate relationship with God that Abraham, Moses or David had. Like many today, the Israelites, despite having been uniquely chosen to receive ‘The Law, had no concept of a personal God. Enter Jesus, who speaks of God as a loving Father, a faithful shepherd and one who desired an intimate, meaningful relationship, rather than ceremonial rituals and the keeping of strict rules. This was so foreign, so unthinkable, that the people didn’t immediately get it.
The people had no concept of such a god. The God of Moses, of the burning bush and the pillar of fire, had become a distant deity, like the idols of the nations, who demanded sacrifices, rituals and laid upon the people a heavy burden of rules that were impossible to keep. Out of fear, and tradition, the people ‘worshipped’ the god of their fathers, just as every nation bows to its official idols. But who could love such a God?
Jesus came to break through the darkness, to expose the false teaching for the lie it was. He could speak authoritatively of his Father, because he knew him, truly, intimately. He dared to ‘reinterpret’ ‘The Law’ of Moses, calling its so-called ‘teachers’ hypocrites and white-washed sepulchers. He could ‘break the Sabbath’ – that is, the random rules false ‘rulers’ had declared ‘orthodoxy’ – without hesitation, because he knew the true meaning and intention of the Sabbath.
Jesus walked and talked, ate and drank, laughed and probably danced with the masses, the ‘sinners’ and even touched the most ‘untouchables’. He feared not to touch those who suffered from dread diseases like leprosy, and amazed the people by not only curing such, but even diseases and infirmities that people had suffered from all of their lives. He healed the sick, the blind, the lame and even raised the dead. If such a man appeared today, our slick ‘teachers’, with their slick theology, would immediately pale in comparison. Those who sprinkle babies and promise they are one of ‘the elect’ by virtue of ‘the covenant’ would blanch at the man who embraced the adulteress and the tax cheat and said to whosoever would hear and believe: ‘Come’. Jesus offered to all, even the despised Samaritan and the Roman Centurian, ‘the living water’ that alone could quench the genuine thirst of men’s souls.
What I believe FOH suggests – he can correct me if I am wrong – is that we escape the ‘prooftext’ treadmill and study what the stories of scripture teach us.
Deceivers can wrestle words, phrases and entire ‘theological systems’ into meaning anything they desire, and patch together prooftexts that appear to teach what they assert is true. Men can debate all day long, and for centuries have, the correct meaning of sin, salvation, atonement and all sorts of important biblical words. But the proof is in the pudding!
The antidote to error, the cure for the disease of spiritual blindness and lameness, is the message of he who was lifted up. When the prooftexter insists that God loves only a select few, look at the words and the actions of Jesus. His words tell us that God loves, and desires to save ‘all men’ for indeed, who is not a part of ‘the world’? Lest we doubt, look at whom he ‘saved’ from the damages of sin. Did the disciples go ahead of him and screen potential healies to make sure they were properly circumcised, baptized and of the lineage of Abraham? No, he healed whosoever was sick and needy. Did Jesus declare ‘Your ‘election’ has made you whole’? No, all who believed in his love and power were healed by it. Is God’s love limited to a select, limited few?
NOOOOOO! A thousand times, no.
Jesus moved among the poor, the sinner, the adulterer, the thief, the murderer and offered them – all of them, without exception – the message they most needed and longed to hear: “God loves you. He can, and will, deal with your sin, so that you can return to him and live the life you and he both long to see lived. Whosever will, come.”
This was not some kind of ‘fake news’. Jesus was not, in an anti-Godfather manner, making an offer that men couldn’t accept. Only wicked, cruel tyrants seek to force their will on others, using any and all means to compel them to do what they want, ordain and ensure comes to pass.
The true God, who is wholly good and whose love is genuine and freely offered, says ‘Come’. And all who desire this living water are free to come. All who love their evil deeds, are free to remain in them.
Forget Calvin. Forget Luther. Forget the whole smarmy gang of Westminster, and any other ‘Divine’ you hold in your mind as an idol, or teacher of orthodoxy who must never be questioned. Read the scriptures. Read the words, look at the acts of Jesus, who came to draw all men to the Father who loves them. He gave his life, and said in reference to sin and its curse of death: ‘It is finished.’ No man need ever die for his sin – ever again! Only should he refuse to believe in, and accept as a freely offered gift, the atoning, freeing, healing balm of Jesus’ blood poured out for the sin of the world, will any man ever have to die for his own sin.
Stop believing the fake news of Calvin and other false teachers. This is the glorious good news, of which angels sang! This is the startling news which quaking shepherds heard as they sat around their fire, watching over the flocks entrusted to them. ‘Come, see’ and they came. This is the message which ‘wise men’ looked for, and recognized the sign of in the skies, and they too came. All who are pure in heart, who seek truth, can find forgiveness for sin and receive a new life, which gives hope in this often dismal world for a better day to come. All are told to ‘come’ and all may truly come.
Glory to God in the highest, who brings to us peace on earth, good will toward men! Come. All who are weary and heavy laden, all who hunger and thirst for righteousness, in themselves and in the world, may believe and come.
ts00 writes, “This is the false dichotomy that false teachers ever resort to. Satan could care less which lie they push, as long as they suppress the truth….What I believe FOH suggests – he can correct me if I am wrong – is that we escape the ‘prooftext’ treadmill and study what the stories of scripture teach us.”
OK, I am confused. You claim a false dichotomy and then seem to say that we should take into account all the Scripture to discover what the Scriptures teach us. If you are arguing against both the FOH approach and my approach, what approach did you have in mind??
Great point!!
There is definitely a carrot on a string for the Calvinist.
I see this “carrot” all the time in Calvinist language – its called “VICARIOUS BOASTING”.
The “carrot” is earthly human pride.
WW writes: “We will rule in the coming Kingdom, even then, God isn’t satisfied for us to merely be his subjects, engaged in an endless worship service in the sky. Certainly, we will worship, but we will also exercise our God given talents and free will to create, because we were born in the image of our Creator. The God we show the world must always look like Christ, and nothing like the cruel hand of fate.”
Very astute thought. I recall the bible study when my Calvinist pastor interpreted scripture literally and woodenly, asserting that in eternity, we would all be forever, and only, casting our crowns before God and falling on our faces in ceaseless worship. I did not think it ‘nice’ or necessary to point out that this was perhaps an overly literal interpretation. Then, a few days later, a dear older woman sought my counsel, as she had been troubled all week with this statement, that, if true, destroyed forever her belief in heaven as a glorious, marvelous existence to look forward to in which we will live as genuine human beings in perfectly glorified bodies, seeing, doing and accomplishing all that our mortal, sinful bodies have been prevented from reaching. She said, and I quote, ‘If heaven is what he [the pastor] described, truth is, I don’t even want to go.’
This is how perhaps well-meaning but overly literal and simplistic interpretations of men can confuse men’s minds and destroy their hope and joy. Calvinsim is unequaled in its ability to take the hope and joy out of one’s faith.
I’m not sure it’s an overly literal interpretation, just a very incomplete one. First of all Heaven is not our Eternal home. I know that sounds like sacrilege to some, but the verses in Revelation seem pretty clear to me, that heaven comes down to Earth and the Earth is remade. I don’t know what all we will do, but we are told we will feast , we’re told about the living water, the animals, and we are told people plant Vineyards. Doesn’t sound like one long church service to me.
Rhutchin writes in one post: “God did not decree that Adam obey. Had God done so, the decree would have triggered further action to bring about Adam’s obedience. The lack of such a decree did not result in Adam’s disobedience but was a necessary factor in Adam’s disobedience as the decree left Adam vulnerable to exploitation by Satan (through Eve).”
Then in another, Rhutchin writes “With respect to His creation, God is not just in complete control, He is sovereign and in absolute control. That means that nothing can happen unless He says so – God always has the final say on what happens. Most recognize this, as some will argue that God “gives” man a free will or that God somehow puts His sovereignty in neutral so that man can have free will. So, I don’t think omnipotence is an issue here.”
Both statements are not only utterly nonsense, they are also completely contradictory. The first attempts to backpedal away from the second’s claim that ‘God is not just in complete control, He is sovereign and in absolute control. That means that nothing can happen unless He says so . . .’ Here the above Calvinist must be VERY careful to phrase God’s determinism as ‘nothing can happen unless he says so’, rather than ‘God is the only cause of whatsoever comes to pass’ when discussing the cause of evil. It is, however, logically impossible to assert God’s complete, deterministic, ‘Calvinistic’ control and not admit that he positively decreed, determined, i.e. ‘authored’ evil ‘whatsoever’ as well as all other ‘whatsoever comes to pass’. But the poor chaps try so hard!
So, the above Calvinist asserts that ‘nothing can happen unless God ‘says so’ yet tries to make the case that God’s decree did not ‘result in’ Adam’s disobedience, but as merely a ‘necessary factor’ – all of the employed euphemisms for ’cause’ are an attempt to appear that he is not denying what he is asserting.
Likewise, what does ‘left Adam vulnerable to exploitation by Satan’ mean under the assertion that God ordains ALL THINGS (causes, determines, makes happen, brings to pass, or whatever euphemism the Calvinist may employ), is in ‘complete’ and ‘absolute’ control? The only thing absolute about such talk is its absolute nonsense. God is in absolute control, yet his ‘missing decree’ leaves Adam ‘vulnerable to exploitation’ by another entity, power or ‘will’?
Such is the endless merry-go-round one must ride with those who attempt to uphold Calvinism’s faulty assertions, yet appear to cling to logic or some sort of view of God that a reasonable person could embrace. As long as the casual hearer, or loyal adherent, does not examine too closely the endless euphemisms and contradictory statements, he can assure himself that what he has adopted actually makes sense. Finding ‘proof’ of its preferred assertions in scripture is the easy part, as one can extract, twist, distort and ‘prooftext’ one’s way to nearly any claim, however specious.
TS00,
Now you gone and done it!
You’ve opened yourself up to a shot across the bow….. I predict a response…..”So, what, you’re a universalist!?”
No here’s one…. “And alas you poor non-Calvinists never offer a better explanation.”
That is ironic in that this entire site (blog posts and thousands of comments) are exactly that…. the explanation.
I kinda understand the die-hard Rhutchins who go around in circles cuz it is all so twisted anyway….. but what I dont get is the young bucks who look on at this folly and say “Amen!”
I think partly is it because they have trash-talked the “other side” so much they cant stand the horror of even listening to it (“they might become an…… an…… Arminian-semi-pelagian-universalist-heretic!”).
Kinda like my daddy from the South (whose family voted D for 4 generations) felt the first time he voted R. How could he?? After calling Rs all those names all those years. But then he stood back and looked and low-and-behold the D party did not represent him anymore.
Just like I stood back and realized the force-fed Calvinism I had ingested did not represent what I saw in the ALL of the Bible.
It was time to eat humble pie and put down the books (at the time, blogs now) and read the Bible!
‘Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush . . .’ I increasingly feel like Rhutchin’s purpose for being here is to attempt to turn what is otherwise thoughtful, genuine examination of shaky if not downright unsupportable logic into schoolyard brawls over ‘My daddy is bigger than your daddy!’
TS00,
I have posted scores of time simple readings from the Scriptures that teach non-calvinistic ideas. No response to 90% of them.
When we get a response …..it is usually
“Mystery”
“You are a universalist”
“Of course, that is what Calvinism teaches too (even in response to some of the most non-calvinistic claims).”
“I dont see the issue”
“you guys never offer an explanation”
The thing is, we only have so much Scripture. Only so many pages. We already know the 40-50 verses that Augustine melded together with his Greek philosophy to give us this philosophical-determinism.
On the other hand the whole rest of the Bible, and human logic (I know….I should never bring that in!!!) speak against Augustine. But as I said….. It’s a scary world out there, so better not listen to those Semi-Pelagians!
I think its safe to say rhutchin has supplied is with a large part of Calvinism’s double-speak talking points.
So when you hear them recited by other Calvinists you’re not fooled by them. :-]
I’m so very glad the Lord guided you out of it! :-]
And everything he’s built into your life and testimony!!
ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely – in his book “Calvinism a closer look” calls what rhutchin does “The Calvinist rocking horse”.
-quote:
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse. As a Calvinist rider, I would throw my weight forward toward my belief in the absolute sovereignty of God until I could go no further, whereupon I would recoil backwards toward my belief in human freedom. Thus I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin.
All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions which, in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.
br.d quotes ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely, “This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse. As a Calvinist rider, I would throw my weight forward toward my belief in the absolute sovereignty of God until I could go no further, whereupon I would recoil backwards toward my belief in human freedom.”
He should have spent more time learning his craft – that he did not probably explains why he calls himself an ex-Calvinist – giving himself more credit than he deserves.
br.d quotes ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely explaining “The Calvinist rocking horse” -paraphrased: “I would throw my semantic weight forward toward my belief in the absolute sovereignty of God – where I would recoil in the other direction least I make God the author of sin …..etc
rhutchin responds
He should have spent more time learning his craft …etc
br.d
Here the Calvinist unwittingly reveals what Calvinist double-speak is: -a quote “craft”.
Thanks rhutchin – good one. :-]
rhutchin responds:
“He should have spent more time learning his craft . . . ”
I am not the only one who has noticed that the successful Calvinist, like the sorcerer, must learn his ‘craft’ . . .
Glancing at some books during the restful Christmas season. I may report more about the book “Don’t Waste Your Life” from Piper.
But for now, suffice it to say that it is certainly “a craft” to learn to inspire young people to make good choices and not waste their lives —– while maintaining the idea (in other places, web site, etc) that God has already decided everything!
Yes that’s called a Freudian slip! 😀
Today my through-the-Bible reading takes me to Jonah (all 4 chapters).
1: 2 “Get up and go to the great city of Nineveh. Announce my judgment against it because I have seen how wicked its people are.”
We see here that it was God’s will that Jonah go to Nineveh. Anyone reading this would see/ think/ believe that Jonah is NOT doing God’s will. We have to be “taught” that it was secretly God’s will that Jonah disobey….
We also see that God pronounces His judgement. He is not saying “turn or burn” —-He is just saying, “burn.”
1:14 Then they cried out to the Lord, Jonah’s God. “O Lord,” they pleaded, “don’t make us die for this man’s sin. And don’t hold us responsible for his death. O Lord, you have sent this storm upon him for your own good reasons.”
15 Then the sailors picked Jonah up and threw him into the raging sea, and the storm stopped at once!
Here we see pagans calling out to God….and God answering. God answering the cry of pagans. Obviously capable to call out to Him.
16 The sailors were awestruck by the Lord’s great power, and they offered him a sacrifice and vowed to serve him.
Because of seeing the great power of God, they believed and worshiped. We see this kind of thing everywhere in the Word, with no indication that there is some kind of special faith being given before hand.
2:7 As my life was slipping away,
I remembered the Lord.
—————Jonah remembered the Lord (think Luke 15, the prodigal son —came to his senses—remembered his father’s house)
9 But I will offer sacrifices to you with songs of praise,
and I will fulfill all my vows.
For my salvation comes from the Lord alone.”
10 Then the Lord ordered the fish to spit Jonah out onto the beach.
—————–Jonah says he will offer sacrifice and will fulfill his vows and God has the fish spit him up.
Who is in charge of Jonah’s situation here? Both of them.
Jonah can’t save himself. God wont save him unless he acts (think Passover: angel of death passes over ONLY the households who have acted in faith by applying the blood).
Later God tells him go deliver the message (“burn”).
3:4 “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (this is not “turn or burn” —-just “burn”)
5 And the people of Nineveh believed God.
9 Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” (Switching to the Calvinist ESV here)
10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. (even in the ESV!!)
What just happened? God said I am going to do it! Then they believed and declared a fast. Then God relented.
What are we supposed to take away from this book?
Here is what I see:
1. You can do other than the will of God.
2. He might turn up the heat, but you still get to choose (Jonah could have “slipped away” and God would have found another…. He did the same with King Saul….”I would have made you ” …..and then chose David).
3. When we call out to God, He hears and saves (but He does wait for us to call) (think: the entire book of Judges).
4. God planned judgement on Nineveh but relented. Even the ESV has to say “relented” (which of course requires at least some kind of change). Many translations just say “changed His mind.” And yet we are told He cannot change His mind or relent.
That’s a great God!
Excellent! We’re looking into Jonah in our small group meeting. Yes! Amazing how the pagan sailers could understood and pagan ninivites could repent. One thing is shows me and is that it’s not just knowledge of scripture that brings us to God. Unless the heart is engaged , our so-called repentance is just gibberish. And sometimes the less knowledge we have, the less it gets in the way of us simply receiving Christ.
Notice how the text reads “THEN” the Lord ordered the fish to spit Jonah out.
Notice how the language in this text does not support the presupposition that the Lord at the foundation of the world before man was created decreed/determined the fish to spit Jonah out.
The language of the text infers this act on God’s part as something he personally did AT THAT TIME.
Additionally, notice how the language of the text specifically highlights this action on God’s part AS-IF it were a unique event, leaving the reader with the understanding that this event was specifically “ordered” by God – and as such all of the other events were not meticulously “ordered” by God.
The Calvinist has to read his philosophy (aka Universal Divine Causal Determinism) into the text.
The Calvinist is taught to read this philosophy into verses automatically in his mind as he is reading.
Eventually the mental gymnastics involved in this “reading” into the text becomes automatic – and this then becomes the “natural” reading of the text for the Calvinist – who is indoctrinated to read it that way.
Yes br.d…
That read-into-each text becomes automatic….. and produces “Amen! Amen! Amen!” when people say philosophical points that do not match the Bible.
Well intended at first (give God the glory, do not elevate man, make God sovereign, see God’s grace as stunningly beautiful, etc)…. but obviously it leads a person to mental gymnastics EVERY day when reading the Scriptures. I, myself just got tired of forcing myself to filter every passage with these lenses and read every passage with a “it does not really mean what it says” caveat.
br.d writes, “The language of the text infers this act on God’s part as something he personally did AT THAT TIME.”
What is the issue? Calvinists say that God knew in eternity past that which He executes “AT THAT TIME.” What point are you trying to make?
Then, “Additionally, notice how the language of the text specifically highlights this action on God’s part AS-IF it were a unique event,…”
Calvinists say that this was an unique event. Why shouldn’t you, and others, do the same??
Then, “…leaving the reader with the understanding that this event was specifically “ordered” by God – and as such all of the other events were not meticulously “ordered” by God.”
??? Another bold statement by br.d that he is unable to explain.
As soon as the Christian gets acquainted with Calvinism’s library beguiling double-speak, Calvinism’s fake explanations become clear.
Through-the-Bible brings me to Micah (1-4).
1:2 Attention! Let all the people of the world listen!
Let the earth and everything in it hear.
The Sovereign Lord is making accusations against you;
———————Here the Sovereign Lord can accuse since He is not the origin of their rebellion (but of course for Calvinists, He is).
1:5 And why is this happening?
Because of the rebellion of Israel—
yes, the sins of the whole nation.
Who is to blame for Israel’s rebellion?
Samaria, its capital city!
——————–The Sovereign Lord tells us “why this is happening.” Is it because He decreed it beforehand? No. Because of their rebellion. If they had not rebelled….. carry on as planned. “Who is to blame?” Who is behind all this? God? No—-He clearly tells us that He is not the origin of this. What is so hard to see about this?
2:3 But this is what the Lord says:
“I will reward your evil with evil;
——————–This is great! The Lord rewards (reacts; just like He rewards those who seek Him). Now He will do “evil” (kill etc). This follows what I see throughout the Bible. God does kill, destroy….always as a part of a judgement. I dont really like it…..but I can live with it (He does warn and warn and warn, then judge. So, I get that.). But….. this is not the same as God ordaining all murder, rape, torture that any person commits against another person.
3:1 I said, “Listen, you leaders of Israel!
You are supposed to know right from wrong,
2 but you are the very ones
who hate good and love evil.
——————–What can that mean….”You are supposed to know right from wrong,”? They are supposed to know better. They are empowered to know better. This is the chosen people who are not supposed to sin. Does it sound like—-when they are “loving evil” — and they are supposed to do differently—– does it sound like they are doing the “will of God”? In any way? No. This text and thousands like it demonstrate to us that God does not always get what He wants. All that happens is not what God wants to happen. One is obliged to read-that-into the thousands of passages like this.
3:5 This is what the Lord says:
“You false prophets are leading my people astray!
———————-Yeah, the words “false” and “astray” from the Lord’s own mouth pretty much describe that He does not want it.
This just goes on and on….every day.
And yet….we are to preach that these false prophets —despite what God says—- were really doing the will of God. No thanks.
FOH, and to imitate you in piggy-backing, 🙂 what are we to make of all these incidents of evil, which God asserts are against his will, yet happen anyway?
Do non-Calvinists assert a blind, less than omniscient God: ‘Whoa, I didn’t see that one coming!’ Er, no.
Do non-Calvinists assert a weak, less than omnipotent God: ‘Oh, if only I could stop them!’ Er, no.
Do non-Calvinists assert a worried, less than sovereign God: ‘Oh dear, oh dear, how am I ever going to fix this mess?’ Er, no.
Non-Calvinists also do not assert a deceptive, controlling God: ‘Let’s ordain men to do this wicked thing, then rail against them for doing it, followed by a painful, judgment and punishment, all the while pretending that this was not all my doing.’
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, non-Calvinists do not assert a cruel, heartless, monstrous tyrant who toys with men for the sheer joy of exerting his own power and control, in order to make the terrified few he dragged into his family without any say-so into keeping their mouths shut about his cruelty and injustice. You can bet they will bow in fear before him saying, ‘Yessir, massa, whatever you do is good, massa’, as he kicks them in the face then lights the fires of eternal torment for the hopeless and helpless.
Instead, many non-Calvinists find hope in the love that even the unbelieving world proclaims this time of year: God, coming to earth in the form of a helpless baby. Joy to the world, the Lord has indeed come! The incomparably powerful God taking on weak, mortal flesh in order to break through the vast distance between Creator and creation, to bring the good news to all mankind that God loves them and would – and did – give his very life in order to show this great, merciful love.
Let earth receive her King!
TS00 and WW,
With your recent posts it will not be long before you have the “you universalists!!!” card thrown at you. Happens a lot to me. My thoughts on that:
I am actually sad that universalism is not true. Wouldn’t that be nice if God in His grace and wisdom had decided that all creation will be saved?
I am sad that only 00.15% of humanity will know Christ and His saving grace.
I have thoughts of how nice it would be to see the 99.85% around the throne also.
So, guilty as charged—- if the charge is wishing universalism were true.
I give no credence or weight to Calvin’s idea that there needs to be non-elect (purposely damned) in order to contrast against God’s goodness. Illogical and unbiblical.
So, I take no joy in the 99.85% of humanity that rejects Christ.
At least I see from the Word that the offer was there— but they did not take it.
I cannot see in the Bible (or stand to live with) the idea that our God of grace— the God who says “God is love” — created this 99.85% of humanity with no intention whatsoever of loving or redeeming them.
Just remember that when people shout “universalits!” at you as a means of denigrating you —-they are accusing you of sounding like you think God loves everyone (how terrible!), Christ died for everyone (how terrible!)….and you at least wish everyone would see that (how terrible!).
FOH, if being a Universalist means believing that God loves all men, guilty as charged. If being a Universalist means believing that Jesus shed his blood to atone for all sin, that none need suffer death, guilty as charged. If being a Universalist means hoping that somehow we have not properly understood what God has revealed, and that indeed, someday, all would turn to him and none will perish, guilty as charged.
If being a Universalist means believing that God forces people to love him against their will – count me out!
FOH writes, “I am actually sad that universalism is not true.”
So is every believer. This is part of the horrible decree of God that Calvin identified.
FOH writes, “And yet….we are to preach that these false prophets —despite what God says—- were really doing the will of God.”
It is the will of God because God had the power to silence them but did not; God decreed that the false prophets be free to speak. God was at work through the false prophets and this according to the counsel of His will as we read in Ephesians 1.
Through-the-Bible continuing to Micah:
Here is The Sovereign Lord talking to His chosen people…..
6:3“O my people, what have I done to you?
What have I done to make you tired of me?
Answer me!
4 For I brought you out of Egypt
and redeemed you from slavery…..
————————– The obvious answer is nothing! He did not do anything to them!! They did it! They got “tired of Him.” How can we ever say He organized that they get tired of Him so He could (deceptively) say to them “Why are you doing this?”? Again, that just makes a mockery (or senselessness) of the thousands of passages like this.
6:8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
—————————–He showed them, but they didn’t do it. People just do not always do what God wants.
7:18 Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.
—————————–He does not stay angry. Not angry—angry—–not angry for long. That does not sound like He is “impassible.” Again, “impassibility” another idea that the Calvinists bring-to-the-text.
Through-the-Bible reading (Micah, OT), NT, Psalm, Prov
The Psalm part today is Ps 135.
5 For I know that the Lord is great,
and that our Lord is above all gods.
6 Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all deeps. (Calvinist ESV)
—————————————-The Lord is great! He does what He pleases. Some people confuse this (with presuppositions in mind) with “All that happens pleases Him.” But …..no….. He is above all gods and does what He wants. Including, creates a world where men can say no to Him.
FOH writes, “ome people confuse this (with presuppositions in mind) with “All that happens pleases Him.” But …..no….. He is above all gods and does what He wants.”
Yes. God works all things after the counsel of His will. “God does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’ (Daniel 4)
Then, “Including, creates a world where men can say no to Him.”
I see you stayed awake in one of your classes on Calvinism.
br.d (to rutchin)
December 15, 2017 at 4:44 pm
lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following statement.
CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 7:08 am
True
br.d
December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
True.
br.d
December 16, 2017 at 8:05 am
Ok Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
And
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
Then it logically follows
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS.
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 12:03 pm
True.
br.d
December 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm
Ok lets continue…..
Since:
1) CALVIN’S GOD SPECIFICALLY DECREED ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE
AND
2) CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE
AND
3) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS
It logically follows
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Partially true. God’s decree was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
br.d
December 17, 2017 at 8:21 am
This response evades the question.
The question has nothing to do with what Calvin’s god DID decree.
The question was specific to what Calvin’s god DID NOT decree
Unless you want to argue that something can come to pass that Calvin’s god does not decree.
If so, you’ve rejected Calvinism’s principle proposition.
So again here is the question:
4) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS.”
TRUE or FALSE?
rhutchin
December 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm
God did not decree that Adam obey. Had God done so…….etc…etc…..etc…..etc….
br.d
December 17, 2017 at 7:58 pm
I started this thread by asking you -quote “lets see you answer a simple TRUE or FALSE to the following statement.”
I knew at some point you couldn’t do that and would be forced into side-talking your way out of being honest.
You’ve proven again – that is the way Calvinist double-talk works.
How is it you expect people to take seriously anything you have to say?
br.d writes, “I knew at some point you couldn’t do that and would be forced into side-talking your way out of being honest.
You’ve proven again – that is the way Calvinist double-talk works.”
Poor br.d Tried to pull a fast one and got caught. He went from simple statements of fact to forcing an erroneous cause and effect claim.
rhutch
Poor br.d Tried to pull a fast one and got caught. He went from simple statements of fact to forcing an erroneous cause and effect claim.
The progression is there for everyone to read.
CAUSE AND EFFECT is the basic proposition of Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
– Calvin’s God DID decree Adam’s disobedience come to pass
– Calvin’s god DID NOT decree Adam’s obedience come to pass
– Nothing can come to pass unless Calvin’s god specifically decree it
– Each specific thing which comes to pass does so **BECAUSE** Calvin’s god specifically decrees it
Now your simply equivocating on the CAUSE AND EFFECT assertion that is foundational to your own doctrine.
You’re simply unable to be honest with your own belief system.
Poor rhutchin – nothing he says is trustworthy. :-]
rhutchin writes
God did not decree that Adam obey. Had God done so, THE DECREE WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED FURTHER ACTION TO BRING ABOUT Adam’s obedience.
br.d
Would that decree and its further action GUARANTEE Adam’s obedience would come to pass?
br.d asks, “Would that decree and its further action GUARANTEE Adam’s obedience would come to pass?”
Had God decreed Adam’s obedience, then God would have taken those actions required to guarantee Adam’s obedience.
br.d asks, “Would that decree and its further action GUARANTEE Adam’s obedience would come to pass?”
rutchin
Had God decreed Adam’s obedience, then God would have taken those actions required to guarantee Adam’s obedience.
br.d
And to be consistent with Calvinist doctrine that *ALL* things which come to pass, could -quote “those actions” come to pass without decree(s)? And as such those decree(s) GUARANTEED Adam’s obedience would come to pass?
Reflected on the Lord’s day yesterday on a couple of verses…..
Matt 17:20
He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Luke 17:6
He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
Now….we are told constantly that all the verses describing individual faith (Abraham, all those listed in Hebrews 11, etc) are really just a list of “dead” people that God gave faith to. So He gives them the faith, then says “good job” for that faith. Or, as they say …doesn’t give them the faith…. and scolds them for lack of faith.
What about the times above when Jesus tells believers that they should have faith….or more faith?
Let me see if I got this…….
Dead people—-regenerated, given faith, then exercise faith, believe, are justified, buried with Christ, dead to sin….. then told by Christ that they have so little faith (which of course is the “little faith” that He must have given them). Then told if only you had even small faith you could…..
It is all so confusing from the reformed perspective ….when do you “get” faith… and how much… and why it is not enough (for Christ in the above)…. and why does He make it sound like it depends on them —when determinists say none of it depends on them?
He tells them they have “so little faith”—- what, they could have more? But He has to give it to them? Or they can produce more? But they dont produce it —He gives it?
Phew…. gets me dizzy.
Yes….. I know…. the Calvinist answer will begin with “These verses dont mean what they look like they mean….we know that……”
Daily reading gets me to Habakkuk 1-3
1:6 I am raising up the Babylonians,
a cruel and violent people.
They will march across the world
and conquer other lands.
—————————–This is the kind of passage that some people use to show that God controls everything. But does it? Sure He is working to encourage the Babylonians to attack (not too hard for Him; dangle some treasures in front of those greedy people). And He will use their cruelty for His judgement of others.
But the very fact that He tells us that He is the motivation behind their actions indicates that He wants us to know that. He wants us to know that they are attacking at His prompting. And that of course contrasts to the fact that He is not always the motivation for people to attack. Simply put, why would He tell us He is the hand behind this action —-if He is actually the hand behind EVERY action?
No, here He is telling us that He is not the guy behind all attacks, but this one He is. He goes on to say…..
1:7 They are notorious for their cruelty
and do whatever they like.
—————————– Well there you have it. They do what they like. He will steer their cruelty (since they are known for it—even before He begins to use them). But their cruelty comes from doing “whatever they like.”
FOH writes, “Sure He is working to encourage the Babylonians to attack…”
The Babylonians are described as “a cruel and violent people.” They don’t need encouragement from God to be themselves.
Then, “He tells us that He is the motivation behind their actions indicates that He wants us to know that. He wants us to know that they are attacking at His prompting.”
God does not need to motivate or prompt them to evil – it is their desire. God protects Judah and need only remove His protection to get the result described here. Isaiah 10 describes God’s use of the Assyrians – no need to think it is any different from the Babylonians.
Then, “why would He tell us He is the hand behind this action —-if He is actually the hand behind EVERY action?”
It is an illustration as are the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and Pharaoh in Romans 9. Paul explains in Romans 15, “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Paul uses the same language in 1 Corinthians 10 concerning the events of the wilderness journeys.
Why does God give us examples like this. One explanation – Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 6, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.” Take up the full armor of God and do not forsake God as Israel and Judah did and faced their enemies alone – enemies that could only attack them when God removed His protection over them.
Excellent! :-]
rhutchin – December 18, 2017 at 2:45 pm
br.d writes, “5) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS BECAUSE CALVIN’S GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – WHICH WAS THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS”
br.d is still pushing a cause and effect that is not supported in the preceding statements.
Let’s help br.d (because he really needs help).
5) ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD NOT COME TO PASS in part BECAUSE GOD DID NOT DECREE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – WHICH WAS THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – and would then provide for God to execute that decree to affect Adam’s obedience.”
br.d
Although in your mind you believe you’ve disproved statement (5) – you’ve actually done nothing more than affirm it.
I’ve already foreseen your equivocation and defined “DECREE” so you can no longer “shape-shift” its scope.
-quote:
Here “DECREE” can be singular or plural and is defined as:
Anything and everything having to do with Adam AND anything and everything having to do with (divine or otherwise) secondary means having to do with Adam.
So then we have sufficient sound logic to continue – it logically follows:
6) CALVIN’S GOD DID WILLFULLY WITHHOLD THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE TO COME TO PASS – CALVIN’S GOD’S “DECREE” INSTEAD DID WILLFULLY AND SPECIFICALLY CONSEQUENCE AS UNALTERABLE ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE AS THE ONLY THING THAT COULD COME TO PASS.
Thus it logically follows:
7) CALVIN’S GOD COMMANDED ADAM TO OBEY – KNOWING HE HAD WILLFULLY WITHHELD THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ADAM’S OBEDIENCE – AND KNOWING HE HAD MADE ADAM’S FUTURE CHOICE FIXED AND UNALTERABLE – THUS WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE (i.e.THE WHOLE TRUTH) FROM ADAM – LEADING ADAM TO FALSELY BELIEVE ADAM’S OBEDIENCE COULD COME TO PASS WHEN THE TRUTH WAS IT COULDN’T.
Thus it follows:
8) ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE WAS THE UNALTERABLE CONSEQUENCE OF CALVIN’S GOD’S DECREE
br.d writes, “Thus it follows:
8) ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE WAS THE UNALTERABLE CONSEQUENCE OF CALVIN’S GOD’S DECREE”
True.
(See 1-8 Logically sequential steps in previous post)
br.d writes, “Thus it follows:
8) ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE WAS THE UNALTERABLE CONSEQUENCE OF CALVIN’S GOD’S DECREE”
rhutchin
December 19, 2017 at 9:32 am
True.
br.d
Thus it logically follows
9) ALL THINGS WHICH CAME TO PASS HAVING TO DO WITH ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE – INCLUDING ALL DIVINE ACTIONS AND ALL SECONDARY MEANS – WERE THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE AND DIRECT RESULT OF (A) CALVIN’S GOD DECREEING ADAM’S DISOBEDIENCE AND (B) CALVIN’S GOD NOT DECREEING ADAM’S OBEDIENCE – COME TO PASS.
Thus it logically follows:
10) IF CALVIN’S GOD DECREED ADAM’S OBEDIENCE FREE TO COME TO PASS – THEN CALVIN’S GOD DECREED FREE TO COME TO PASS – THE VERY THING HE ORDAINED NOT TO COME TO PASS.
br.d
We already know from Piper that “God has two wills.”
He makes it abundantly clear on his site that God commands men not to do things that he unalterably wills for them to do.
This is of course supported by pick-and-choose verses (that must be interpreted their way), and comparing them to a few other cherry-picked verses.
Case in point is the go-to, half-verse in Micah about ‘does calamity come to a city unless God wills it?
Which if seen in context makes sense to the point the prophet is making.
But a half-verse, yanked-out-of-context is enough of a trump card against the thousands of verses where “The Sovereign Lord” says “I did not want you to ….” “I did not expect you to….” “It did not even cross my mind….” “I expected this….but you gave Me this….”
Yes! Thanks absolutely correct.
And to my statement – the question then – if someone is logical would that someone decree [X] “free” to come to pass while at the same time “ultimately” not allowing [X] come to pass?
Its like a father saying to his child: “You are free to take the pencil from me – while I ensure you cannot take the pencil from me”.
If that father were an earthly person the Christian would call that father’s intent and action evil.
Thus we see in Calvinism a doctrine of “divine hypocrisy”.
And a divine character which does not hold itself accountable to the standards of godliness it states within scripture.
-quote:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they are hypocrites who do not do what they say. Matthew 23:3
We also see a deity who speaks with forked-tongue – and whose followers do likewise.
I conclude this deity is man-made.
br.d writes, “Its like a father saying to his child: “You are free to take the pencil from me – while I ensure you cannot take the pencil from me”.”
Confused. Better to write, “Its like a father saying to his child: ‘You are free to take the pencil from me, but then I will test you to see if you would take the pencil but I know that, when tested, you will not take the pencil.'”
br.d
I am married to a woman who is not my wife.
“Are you married to that woman?” yes. “Is she your wife?” no.
Did God decree that you do that? yes. Does He command you not to do it? yes. Does He want you to do it? No. Does He always get what He wants? yes.
Whatever.
Believe me nobody comes into Calvinism through this door!! I sure didn’t. I would have seen the “God commands all evil” folly right away.
People come in the “Honor God!” “Are you greater than God, you man-centered wienie!?” or the “Dont wast your life” door.
Which is ironic …..since the same guy who tells people they can —but shouldnt —waste their lives is the same guy that says that every actions since before time has been decreed/ willed/ desire/ planned/ ordained buy God —even the Holocaust —for His glory!
FOH writes:
Which is ironic …..since the same guy who tells people they can —but shouldn’t —waste their lives is the same guy that says that every actions since before time has been decreed/ willed/ desire/ planned/ ordained buy God —even the Holocaust —for His glory!
Yes, I can see that is the door they typically come in through – I call it Calvinism’s “carrot” on a string – it comes with a very heavy dose of what psychologists call “vicarious boasting”. They cannot boast about directly themselves because that would be too obviously carnal. But they can get the same internal sensation that comes with self-boasting vicariously – by boasting about someone or something having to do with their association. Calvinism has its own icons in the form of respected persons.
I liked your rendition of Calvinist jargon:
Did God decree that you do that? yes.
Does He command you not to do it? yes.
Does He want you to do it? No.
Does He always get what He wants? yes.
Are you to go about your office *AS-IF* God didn’t will you to do that – and doesn’t always get what he wants? yes
Are you to be very careful to always recite these using Calvinist beguiling double-speak? yes
Have you been taught to believe all of that is fully honest? yes
br.d writes, “10) IF CALVIN’S GOD DECREED ADAM’S OBEDIENCE FREE TO COME TO PASS – THEN CALVIN’S GOD DECREED FREE TO COME TO PASS – THE VERY THING HE ORDAINED NOT TO COME TO PASS.”
The phrasing is confusing, so let’s straighten it out.
10) God decreed both that Adam be free to choose to obey Him and then that Adam disobey (this accomplished through Satan).
rutchin writes;
The phrasing is confusing, so let’s straighten it out.
br.d
Since Calvinism’s language is so full of beguiling double-speak – we can see how “phrasing’ is so important to them.
The phrasing is based upon logic not what is what one finds palatable.
10) IF CALVIN’S GOD DECREED ADAM’S OBEDIENCE FREE TO COME TO PASS – THEN CALVIN’S GOD DECREED FREE TO COME TO PASS – THE VERY THING HE ORDAINED NOT TO COME TO PASS.”
And remember the definition of DECREE here already eliminates Calvinist equivocating on its scope.
Here “DECREE” can be singular or plural and is defined as:
Anything and everything having to do with Adam AND anything and everything having to do with (divine or otherwise) secondary means having to do with Adam.
br.d writes, ‘Here “DECREE” can be singular or plural and is defined as:
Anything and everything having to do with Adam AND anything and everything having to do with (divine or otherwise) secondary means having to do with Adam.”
It should be “primary and secondary means.”
C’mon guys, you aren’t being very nice. You know full well the Calvinist position cannot hold up under the application of logic. They have to stick with their script, and bounce back and forth between their various definitions and explanations. It can’t be easy, trying to present
ts00 writes, “You know full well the Calvinist position cannot hold up under the application of logic.”
So, here we are waiting for the application of logic to espose Calvinist positions.
Yes, I know – logic is the Calvinists biggest weakness.
Actually, for me its a little deeper than that.
Its not logic per se that Calvinists have trouble with – its compliance to standards that Calvinists evade.
That is understandable because the image of their deity is one who does not conform to any “known” standard.
That’s why I call Calvinism a doctrine of “divine unaccountably”
Logic follows prescribed standards – such as the law of bi-valence, and principles of fallacies etc.
Calvinists always seek loopholes around logic – because they must evade conforming to its “known” standards.
this stuff with a straight face. (Sorry, it got away from me before I finished.) 🙂
It’s all perfectly simple. Let’s explain, for example, the existence of murder under Calvinism.*
God, in eternity past, secretly and sovereignly ordained whatsoever will come to pass in his creation.
God, in his revealed will and commands (scripture) sets forth the prohibition of murder: “Thou shalt not murder.”
God, who is perfectly good and trustworthy, in his secret will, sovereignly ordained, in eternity past, many men to resist his will and break his command and to commit murder, all for his good pleasure.
God sometimes toys with men, as he did with Cain, urging him to resist evil and avoid the mastery of sin, when God had actually secretly and sovereignly ordained in eternity past that Cain would not resist evil and avoid the mastery of sin, and would murder his brother Abel.
God is angry with men (like Cain) for committing the murders he secretly and sovereignly ordained in eternity past for them to commit and irresistibly brought to pass through whatever means he secretly pursues.
God, who could have regenerated the men he secretly and sovereignly ordained to commit murder, could have had Jesus die for their sins, and could have brought them to repentance and given them faith, as he did for his sovereignly chosen elect, decreed in eternity past to not redeem, call or save any (non-elect) murderers.
God will eventually consign to eternal punishment all non-elect murderers for committing the murders he secretly and sovereignly ordained for them to commit in eternity past; because he chose not to have Jesus die for the non-elect’s sin, he of course did not regenerate those non-elect whom he never intended to save.
God is righteous, loving and just and deserves our praise and glory.
*This is not the true picture of the genuinely good, loving, just and merciful God of scripture, but merely Calvinism’s distorted caricature.
TS00
You have displayed your angst, and you have accurately described murder from the Calvinism point of view.
I dont think there is any issue that they can take against what you said. If anyone comments, it should be “Yep, that covers it.”
Now, four things, if I might.
1. As I have stated many times, most of them dont come directly in that God-desired-everything-Hitler-did door…. they come in one little piece at time. If God is sovereign (according to the definition of the newly-minted YRR in front of you) then…..hum…. If God is omniscient according to the definition of the newly-minted YRR in front of you)….. then hummmm. This must be…then this….then this ….. (all rickety beliefs they would never accept as a stand-alone)… so they “scaffold” together a philosophy founded on presuppositions. That is how they get to the atrocious belief you describe. They throw their hands up and say, “Well, it’s ugly, but it must be true cuz A + B+ C+ D +….”
2. Then, in order to be able to sleep at night or to communicate with their sobbing wives (ladies dont like to follow monsters/ tyrants as much as men do)….. they say, “BUT….but…. it is ALSO true that man has free will and has chosen his actions (that were decreed for him) and deserves death and torture. Let’s see….. I will call this…..hummm… gotta be at least 5 syllables…. com-pat-i-bal-is-m.”
3. Then….. if that does not fly….. for the skeptics in the room…who mean well, and want to believe….. let’s pull out our next card….. “Mystery” (He works in mysterious ways….our ways are not His ways….”) “Mystery!!”
4. If you are not convinced by the scaffolding of rickety logic on a bad foundation…. and if “compatibalism” did not relieve you (“just let it ride man, they are both true!”) ….. and finally if you cannot forget it and go watch baseball saying….. “It’s all a mystery, dude.” ….. then…. then we have one more card. Our last card…… “Foolishness!” “The truth is foolishness to you because you are refusing to believe.”
FOH writes: “The truth is foolishness to you because you are refusing to believe.”
Yes, I know how their little minds work. They are so smugly proud of their ‘humble’ ability to accept God with all his ‘warts’. In their self-righteous foolishness, they never see that they are doing the work of Satan, ascribing the evil that he inspires to the only Good and wholly sinless being in he universe, our great and glorious God, who has redeemed us from the evil one’s clutches. May God have mercy on them.
This reminds me of the story of the French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot in 1903, who claimed to have discovered the N-Ray, shortly after the discovery of the X-Ray.
Blondlot and a large number of associates and science students were completely and totally convinced because they consistently saw these N-Ray with their own eyes.
Interestingly enough, Blondlot’s N-Rays could not be observed by anyone who had not been influenced by him to see them. And a large body of scientist and students – all influenced by Blondlot claimed they did see them.
Einstein decided to pay Blondlot a visit in his laboratory. Einstein secretly removed a critical component out of Blondlot’s N-Ray machine. But even then Blondlot and all of those he influenced continued to claim they saw the N-Rays.
Until Einstein showed them the part he had removed from the machine.
They then realized they had been totally hoodwinked by confirmation bias. 😀
tsoo writes, “God sometimes toys with men, as he did with Cain, urging him to resist evil and avoid the mastery of sin, when God had actually secretly and sovereignly ordained in eternity past that Cain would not resist evil and avoid the mastery of sin, and would murder his brother Abel.”
So, your complaint is that God is toying with you when He tells you to love your neighbor and then gives you the freedom to hate your neighbor that you then exercise as it suits you. Guess God did not take into account your healthy ego.
Rhutchin writes: “Guess God did not take into account your healthy ego.”
On the contrary, God’s taking into account the self-righteous arrogance of those who believe themselves to be ‘chosen’ is clearly revealed in Paul, whom of course they seek to twist into actually asserting their ‘elect’ status. All men are without excuse, and their most clever attempts to wrestle the meaning of scripture to suit their own purposes will be revealed for what it is under the gaze of the Good and perfect God. They will not then dare to suggest that God himself ordained and ‘brought to pass’ their every wicked thought, word and deed.
But it’s all good, see, because God cursed men with a ‘sin nature’ (Total Depravity) so they would freely choose to do the dirty work he irresistibly ordained them to do. That way, he could claim that the sin he irresistibly ordained was actually man’s fault because his ‘sin nature’ made him ‘choose’ it! I’s not really God’s fault that the men he cursed with an inability to resist sin perform sin see? It’s their own fault, see, for being born cursed with a sin nature because of another man’s sin (neither of which they chose, but who are you to argue with God, O man?) and refusing to believe (which of course that dreadful curse they didn’t choose made them unable to do, and even though God could have ‘regenerated’ them and made them able, well he just didn’t want to, and who are you to argue with God, O man?
And we are supposed to believe that the guy who thought this all up was some sort of intellectual giant?
I love watching the questions Jesus asks. They are highly illuminating.
In Luke 20 Jesus asks: John’s baptism–was it from heaven, or of human origin?”
Notice that Jesus is point directly to the “Source”.
If Calvin’s god before humanity is created – determines every sin that will come to pass – then it follows every sin has its source in Calvin’s god who first-conceived each sin in his mind – before humanity is created. Thus each sin has its source in the mind of Calvin’s god.
br.d
On a similar note in the OT, “The Sovereign Lord” says this kind of thing often……
“They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” (Jeremiah 32:35, Calvinist ESV).
Here “The Sovereign Lord” in His Word (there are only so many pages in that book—and He uses some of them for this!) says these kinds of things to make sure we know.
What more could He say?
I mean how much more simply and clearly could God state that He has nothing to do with this?
And yet….. and yet….. man comes along and for Hellenistic-Greek-philosophy reasons trumps all that —overriding God’s personal, clear statements —- and says “No, no, we know that God planned/ willed/ ordained/ decreed all that child sacrifice because our scholar-divines told us so!”
Next….. I expect a quote from Eph 1:11 about God working out His purposes. The misuse (or Calvinistic-only-interpretation) of this verse just does not rebut God stating (many times) clearly that He has nothing to do with these evil deeds.
Neoplatonism became widely influential at around the 3rd century A.D. and persisted until shortly after the closing of Plato’s Academy in Athens at around 520 A.D. After Plato’s death (approximately 347 BC), various Greek schools of thought vied to claim the name of Plato for their tradition, with each claiming theirs as the premier representative of Plato’s thought. One such school, which rose to predominance, was that of NeoPlatonism.
For nine years prior to Neoplatonism, Augustine was a disciple of a semi-Christian Gnostic dualistic sect known as Manichaeism. Christian Gnosticism asserted a significant presence in its day and the Gnostic sect of Manichaeism flourished in the ancient world. Manichaeism spread with extraordinary speed through both the east and west, from North Africa to China. Being widely promoted by apostles, it reached Egypt at around 240 A.D., and Rome at around 280 A.D.
In the NeoPlatonist world-view, all things have an infinite, timeless, and unchangeable God as the cause of their existence. Some of the dualistic elements within Manichaeism were also shared, as NeoPlatonism was heavily influential among the Gnostics. For NeoPlatonists it would be possible to categorize both “good” and “evil”, as “good” or “less good” and possibly not “evil” at all, since all things emanate from the “one”, and the “one” is beautiful and good. Therefore, all things exist in the “one”, in the form of undifferentiated unity, as elements divinely synchronized within the “one”; of necessity containing good and evil along with all other constituents of the cosmos.
Sin and evil can then be stated as beautiful and good, since they are necessary parts of the wholeness of the “one”.
English historian, Theodore Maynard, in The story of American Catholicism writes: “It has often be charged… that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that charge – and to make it her boast. The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.”
These pagan constructs would be imbibed by the Catholic NeoPlatonists, and foremost by Augustine, who would carry them forward, and in his eloquent writing, baptize them as Christian, just like the Catholic church had baptized the great god Pan.
br.d writes, “Thus each sin has its source in the mind of Calvin’s god.”
God is omniscient having perfect knowledge and infinite understanding of all things. Thus, there can be no sin in which a person might engage or sinful thought that a person might think that was not known to God in eternity past. The thinking of sinful thoughts and the execution of sin is freely accomplished by sinful people without assistance from God.
br.d writes, “Thus each sin has its source in the mind of Calvin’s god.”
rhutch responds
God is omniscient having perfect knowledge
br.d
This is a good example of Calvinism’s beguiling double-speak.
Here the word “knowledge” is used equivocally – masquerading as “knowledge by simple observation”.
What the Calvinist is hiding here is his doctrine “Foreknowledge = “Foreordination”
In Calvinism Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge is simply the consequence of (and thus coded language for) decrees.
So when the Calvinist says “Calvin’s god KNOWS every sin – what he seeks to hide is Calvin’s god DECREES’s every sin.
Thanks rhutchin for another good example of Calvinist double-speak :-]
br.d writes, “Here the word “knowledge” is used equivocally – masquerading as “knowledge by simple observation”.
What the Calvinist is hiding here is his doctrine “Foreknowledge = “Foreordination””
It is standard Calvinism that God’s decrees determine His foreknowledge. The double-speak reflects your ignorance and maybe such ignorance is rampant among non-Calvinists.
br.d
Here the word “knowledge” is used equivocally – masquerading as “knowledge by simple observation”.
What the Calvinist is hiding here is his doctrine “Foreknowledge = “Foreordination”
In Calvinism Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge is simply the consequence of (and thus coded language for) decrees.
So when the Calvinist says “Calvin’s god KNOWS every sin – what he seeks to hide is Calvin’s god DECREES’s every sin.
rhutchin writes
It is standard Calvinism that God’s decrees determine His foreknowledge. The double-speak reflects your ignorance and maybe such ignorance is rampant among non-Calvinists.
br.d
Here he displays an aspect of his character he would otherwise not want to reveal.
When tactics are exposed – an antagonistic response is understandable.
br.d writes, “When tactics are exposed – an antagonistic response is understandable.”
Or maybe I just noted the obvious – truth is not antagonistic. If you thought that I was wrong, you could have argued against it – you did not.
br.d writes, “When tactics are exposed – an antagonistic response is understandable.”
rhutchin:
Or maybe I just noted the obvious – truth is not antagonistic. If you thought that I was wrong, you could have argued against it – you did not.
br.d
What was displayed was so obvious – nothing needed on my part. 😀
ts00 writes, “God cursed men with a ‘sin nature’ (Total Depravity) so they would freely choose to do the dirty work he irresistibly ordained them to do.”
How about that! Ts00 is running around doing the dirty work God ordained that he freely do, and ts00 enjoys doing that dirty work even taking pleasure in doing it. So, what is his complaint – seems like a win-win to me. Both God and ts00 get what they want.
Rhutchin writes: “How about that! Ts00 is running around doing the dirty work God ordained that he freely do, and ts00 enjoys doing that dirty work even taking pleasure in doing it. So, what is his complaint – seems like a win-win to me. Both God and ts00 get what they want.”
Sounds to me more like what Satan wants.
What God and I want is for me to be conformed to the humble, selfless, sacrificial image of His Son. Indeed, rather than secretly ordaining my sin, and giving me sinful desires so that I greatly enjoy doing it, God constantly calls me to turn from sin, and the destruction is brings to myself as well as those I sin against. When I fight the sin that seeks to have mastery over me, I, unlike the Calvinist, am not fighting against God’s sovereign decrees. Whereas you would have God equipping and urging me to do the sin He ordained, scripture always asserts the opposite:
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect . . . Let love be genuine, hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good.” (Rom 12:2,9)
No, indeed, I do not hold to the hopeless, horrific assertion that God ‘gets what he wants’ when I, or any man sins. I pity those who do, for they are allowing Satan to rob them of the only power that can free them from sin.
ts00 writes, “Sounds to me more like what Satan wants.”
Exact;y, Every time you sin, you are doing exactly what Satan wants. God gave you freedom and then tested your faith and you failed the test.
Then, “What God and I want is for me to be conformed to the humble, selfless, sacrificial image of His Son…God constantly calls me to turn from sin,”
That;s what you say – but then God tests you and what happens – the real ts00 shows up. Ts00 turns a deaf ear to God.
Then, “No, indeed, I do not hold to the hopeless, horrific assertion that God ‘gets what he wants’ when I, or any man sins.”
The hopeless, horrific assertion is that you are still a hopeless, horrific sinner. When are you going to admit the obvious??
You can take solace in being no different tan your normal Calvinist – who are not encumbered by the egos that seem to prevail among non-Calvinists – who write comments like you just did.
Rhutchin writes: “The hopeless, horrific assertion is that you are still a hopeless, horrific sinner. When are you going to admit the obvious??”
What is obvious is that Rhutchin does not understand the gospel. As one of my favorite hymn verses says:
‘My sin, oh the bliss of this glorious thought
My sin, not in part, but the whole
Is nailed to the cross
And I bear it no more
Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord
O my soul!’
The Calvinist simply does not understand that Jesus did away with sin once and for all, offering unqualified pardon to all who trust in his offer of grace. That means that no, I am no longer ‘a hopeless, horrific sinner’. Paul declares that there is no more possibility of sin for me – not because of my inherent goodness, or perfect ability to keep the law (neither of which I possess) – but because I am no longer under the law. Where there is no law, there is no condemnation. It is not, as Calvinism asserts, that my sin is merely covered over with an invisible robe contributed by Jesus. That is a complete misrepresentation of what Jesus has done. Paul teaches in Colossians:
“In him [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ . . . And you who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you [as to keeping the regulations of the law] . . . Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement . . .” (Col 2:11, 13, 14, 16, 18)
Who are you, O man, to pass judgment on another for the sin debt that Jesus cancelled? Who are you, O man, to insist on self-abasement of he whom God has made alive together with his Son, cancelling the bond which stood against him with its legal demands? John tells us that:
“You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. By this it may be seen who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.” (1 Jn 3:5-10)
Sunday after Sunday my Calvinist pastor confessed that he was a child of the devil, admitting that he sinned endlessly, every day. He said it with gusto, taking great pride in his freedom to sin. Then he had the temerity to judge his congregation, and call all of us children of the devil, insisting that we, like him, sinned every day and would remain enslaved to this sin for as long as we lived. This is the lie of the devil.
I say to you that I am a child of God, and cannot sin. What this suggests is not that I, or anyone else, is perfect, but that we have been taught, and believed, a false interpretation of what sin is. It is not a lack of perfect keeping of the law, which was the burden that once condemned all men to death, but from which we have been freed by the death of Jesus Christ. A child of God cannot sin, because, for him, there is no more law. No charges can ever be brought against the child of God, which is why Paul and John both warn against those who would attempt to once again lay the charge of sin against those for whom there is now no more condemnation, thanks be to God.
The Calvinist does not understand the gospel, what Jesus has done, what sin is and – the root of all of their blindness – the nature of God. The debate over predestination is actually something of a decoy, distracting from the tragic corruption they have introduced into all of Protestant Christianity with their faulty teachings, definitions and interpretations of nearly all of the most important concepts, including sin, atonement, justification, sanctification, etc.
John tells us, point blank, why Jesus came: ‘To take away sins’. One need only keep reading to see that John does not teach the papering over of sin with the made-up Jesus robe of Calvinism. Jesus first cancelled the debt of sin, so that men could be freed from the power of sin. It is this most precious gift, the longing of every genuine child of God, that Calvinism is the most guilty of keeping from believers. In its place, they were long ago led down false paths of ‘Sin Boldly!’ and other foolishness that passes for wisdom because some so-called hero or self-claimed authority said it. When my heart cried out, as ever it does, to be more like Christ, Calvinism insisted it was impossible, charging me with and keeping me falsely chained to the sin that Jesus died to eliminate forever. This, Paul and John both insist, I must never allow.
Therefore, I refuse the judgment you pass upon me. I refuse to bow in false self-abasement that teaches me that I am still a slave of sin and the devil. I will no longer allow Calvinism, or anyone, to deceive me with their lies. My sin, oh the bliss of this glorious thought, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more. No one will lay it upon me ever again. Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord, O my soul!
ts00 writes, “The Calvinist simply does not understand that Jesus did away with sin once and for all, offering unqualified pardon to all who trust in his offer of grace.”
The distinction is that Gd’s elect, while pardoned, still content with the old sin nature. We see this in Romans 7. It is also the basis for Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7, about those who say “Lord, Lord…” and the description of wheat and tares growing together and then Paul’s warnings. Thus, we see Paul exhorting in Romans 6, “Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” and Romans 12, “I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And 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.”
Then, ” I refuse the judgment you pass upon me. I refuse to bow in false self-abasement that teaches me that I am still a slave of sin and the devil.”
That’s fine. Calvinism places emphasis on the sanctification process and the need to fight against the still active sin nature to put away ongoing sin. Non-Calvinists often seem to take a more lassez-faire attitude toward sin in their life and focus on Christ’s work, saying as you do, “My sin, oh the bliss of this glorious thought, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more. No one will lay it upon me ever again.”
Christ has forgiven His elect, but they still sin – Calvinists love the forgiveness provided in Christ and now seek holiness. You had a pastor “who confessed that he was a child of the devil, admitting that he sinned endlessly, every day.” If he said that “with gusto, taking great pride in his freedom to sin,” then he missed the point. Believers are no longer children of the devil but have been adopted by God. The law has been done away but it has been replaced – “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love…. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us [His elect] and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”
Rhutchin writes: “Ts00 is running around doing the dirty work God ordained that he freely do”
I would suggest that Calvinists use words in a straightforward manner, if their intention is to be fully understood. If they believe God merely ‘permits’ men to choose evil, there are many words that describe that, such as ‘permit’. When they use the word ‘ordain’, as the endless discussions on this site prove, most people interpret that with its ordinary meaning, that is to determine or cause, not merely allow.
The point, repeatedly and well made, is that to ordain and to permit are two entirely different things. One cannot use such words interchangeably, as if synonyms. Not if their intention is to be fully understood. One can only assume that Calvinists are ignorantly oblivious to the meaning that will be received by their use of words such as ‘ordain’, or they deliberately seek to obfuscate; they appear to assert many, and contradictory meanings, as suits the moment.
This is the point of the many, many attempts to get those defending Calvinism to state honestly what they believe, without hiding behind archaic words and pretending as if they can grant them magical, ever-changing meanings. If words are not used to bring light and understanding, then they are undoubtedly being used with less than honorable intentions, to bring clouds of confusion and darkness. Scripture makes many references to Jesus being ‘the light of the world’, who came to dispel the darkness and expose the deception of the false teachers who were determined to draw believers into the ditch, if not hell, after them.
Honest men say what they mean, and mean what they say.
TS00,
Yep.
You will have directed toward you many “nanny-nanny,” shots across the bow i.e. “poor little….” but stay the course friend. It’s so childish.
It has been well proven that most Calvinists will interchangeably use decree/ willed/ ordained AND permit/ allow.
There is no sense/ method/ rhythm to any of this. They just do it willy-nilly. They cannot see it if you point it out to them, and dont really care.
Any person can see this happening. It is not hidden and done rather unashamedly.
I was reading a Piper article where he was going for it….doubling-down on how God ordained all things…. all evil….. and then…. wait….. wait for it…. he switched and started using God permits, God allows…. and then challenging “dont do it!” language (the “don’t waste your life” language) as if men could just decide to be different.
Mind-bending.
I sinned…. no problem. God ordained it.
Great points!
If Calvinism really was the “so called” pure gospel – then why are Calvinists so strategically reliant upon beguiling language.
Years ago, It was the carnal spirit of arrogance I observed in Calvinists that was the first red flag for me.
Ever since then, its been discerning Calvinism’s highly evolved library of double-speak that has become the major tell-tale sign.
ts00 writes, “If they believe God merely ‘permits’ men to choose evil, there are many words that describe that, such as ‘permit’.”
The English language is sometimes not up to the task of describing or explaining what God is doing. As Calvin might say, it is never by bare permission that God does anything. Another way to say it is that God always actively permits and never passively permits. But even that doesn’t really say it. God is sovereign over His creation. He knows everything going on at all times down to the shiver of a proton in an atom. It is God who sustains all things down to the smallest particle and nothing happens – not an atom moves or a rain drop fall – without God decreeing that it should. It is God who sustains the forces that hold an atom together and who sustains the gravity that draws a raindrop to the earth. There is not a thought that any person conceives that God does not know and know even before it is conceived – it is God who sustains the life of the vilest sinner even as that sinner executes the vilest sins.. If God does not sustain a life, it ceases to exist; if God does not sustain an atom, it flies apart. God is intimately involved in every aspect of His creation at all times and to say that God ‘permits. anything, regardless of the modifier attached, is inadequate to describe what God does.
Then, “The point, repeatedly and well made, is that to ordain and to permit are two entirely different things.”
Absolute;y not. To a sovereign God, there is no real difference – other than the inability of words to describe God.
Then, “This is the point of the many, many attempts to get those defending Calvinism to state honestly what they believe,…”
Calvinism is honestly described is books upon books. So, understandable is Calvinist doctrine that there are no new arguments against Calvinism – One may argue as Pelagius to denounce Total Depravity, as the Catholics to exalt works in salvation, or as Arminius to exalt free will, or an Open Theist to deny omniscience. A statement like the above only displays one’s great ignorance of Calvinism.
TS00
Hey, you use “Calvinists” like it is one monolithic, happy group. Nope.
They are very occupied with in-fight and destroying their own.
1. First of all they disagree on lots of other things: Piper and MacArthur had a huge fall out over the gifts; MacArthur and Sproul over infant baptism; others about women in ministry, end times, ecclesiology, it just goes on and on.
2. Secondly, even in the area of Calvinism many are so busy trying to out-reform the others that they will harshly malign others (those we would consider hard-determinists) for not being hard enough. It just never stops. When you watch some of the messages of the angry ones, “calling out” James White and Driscoll for not going far enough (woah doggies!)…. it makes you glad you are not in their camp. I can only wonder what they would do if they had the power that kill-all-dissenters Calvin had.
3. Thirdly as I have stated many times…. it doesn’t really matter. Most of the churches led by most of these guys still support missionaries that go with non-Calvinist organizations (and are even non-Calvinist themselves as the supported missionary).
They talk the talk, but dont walk the walk. A couple of my kids went to hear Piper when he came to their town and later told me, “He sounded just like you Dad!” Of course he is gonna preach “Don’t waste your life,” cuz he knows what we do matters.
FOH, you are right, many times I omit the all important ‘consistent’. I truly believe, as you say, that very few so-called Calvinists fully believe, or even grasp what Calvinism, in order to be internally consistent, must assert to be true. I would even say, that is why I ‘bother’, because my desire is to alert nominal Calvinists to the ugliness lurking underneath their naively accepted label. Very, very few would embrace the necessary assertions of Calvinism, and this has been true historically. What I can never figure out is why those Calvinists who learn the truth about their system stubbornly deny it, and cling to the label (or one of its new incarnations) while rejecting the major premises upon which the system is based.
Take Lesslie Newbigin. In his ‘Sin and Salvation’ he writes:
“He sends out His Church to tell all men the gospel, in order that they may repent and be saved. His will is that all should be saved. He does not will the destruction of any soul. Some Christians have taught that God created some men for the purpose of destroying them, but that is quite false teaching. It is based upon a misunderstanding of certain passages in Scripture, but it is certainly not the teaching of the Gospel.”
He appears to have had a pretty accurate understanding of God, salvation and scripture, yet never seems to grasp that this false claim is the historic foundation for the ‘Reformed’ title he persistently clung to. If one denies the concepts of predestination, limited atonement and irresistible grace – as he appeared to – just what does being ‘Reformed’ even mean? Was he fearful of exposing the enormous errors upon which Protestantism was based, incurring the wrath of many, as well as demanding a rebooting of so-called Christianity?
TS00
I cant speak for Newbigin. He was a pacifist also…. like Calvin!!!! (ha!!!)
To some people reformed is like “not Catholic”.
My father-in-law was an ordained Presbyterian minister and held to only the P in TULIP (like many baptists).
Recently attended a conference where a long-time non-Calvinist PhD friend of mine began his talk saying he was from the reformed wing of Christianity. I asked him later —–what? He said look at the audience: other faiths, Catholics, etc. so it was a “broad strokes” label.
But there are plenty who come out of being die-hard Calvinist reformed PhDs and will not touch those labels now: Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd, etc.
FOH
I would dearly love to hear as much as you feel inclined to write on the in-fighting you mentioned!!
I suspected that was the case – as its consistent with religious pride.
But as a non-Calvinist I was never privy to the inside information.
Anything you wish to detail would be highly appreciated!!
br.d
Thanks for asking. it is easy to find plenty of their fall-out on the internet, but I prefer to leave it there from my end since I do not delight in it.
I prefer to try to offer good biblical thinking that will provide people with some push-back when the YRR crowd comes brow-beating at their door. I did not have that when they drew me in.
I hope to spend what time I have in biblical exegesis (my daily reading) like the Romans 4 “believing is not a work” idea that I just exegeted to Troy, who had the audacity to say “believing is a work.” Paul goes out of his way to say works is no good…. contrasting works with believing and trusting.
When you come to the text with “believing is a work” then you run smack into Paul.
Good post!
Calvinist language is the language of half-truths.
rhutchin writes
How about that! Ts00 is running around doing the dirty work God ordained that he freely do, and ts00 enjoys doing that dirty work even taking pleasure in doing it. So, what is his complaint – seems like a win-win to me. Both God and ts00 get what they want.
br.d
We already know all about Calvinism’s beguiling double-talk
Free to think/choose/desire/do *ONLY* what an external intelligence determines one think/choose/desire/do.
And *NOT FREE* to think/choose/desire/do otherwise.
Here we find Calvinists are taught to simply recite these double-talk mantras because double-talk mantras is all they have.
There is a key identifier here in your post – the word “irresistibly”.
Calvinists like to claim Calvin’s god makes “grace” irresistible because “grace” is a benevolent divine action.
They don’t like to claim that Calvin’s god makes “everything”, including “sin” irresistible for the obvious reasons.
But it makes sense within the framework of *UNIVERSAL* divine causal determinism.
One can say that a robot follows its predetermined program “irresistibly”.
And in Calvinism ALL human thoughts/choices/desires/actions *UNIVERSALLY* follow the same functionality – in that in Calvinism all human functionality follows a predetermined program.
As we all know….no matter how many thousands of verses and contexts we post, someone will come along with one of 10-15 trump verses (from there selection of 40-50) that override all.
One of those is in John 6 and Leighton deals with it.
I was reading John 6 today. Great passage in context.
Let’s look at it in the Calvinist Translation ESV. Let’s remember that this is one a very few verses on which the entire philosophy of determinism is based (scaffolded). A very big, wide-reaching philosophy that impacts everything…..and based on a few verses like the following (I mean, not ALL of the following verses….just the half-verse yanked out of context—and repeated over and over).
————-
Jon 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
————
First of all Christ Himself says “whoever” (but of course we are told that does not mean “whoever”).
Secondly, Christ tells us that they have seen yet don’t believe. Why say that? Calvinism: He never planned for them to believe (didn’t choose them). But then, what’s the point? Non-Calvinism: You guys could have believed, but you didn’t want to.
Next, “All the Father gives me.” “lose nothing of all that he has given me…”
Who does the Father give?
“For this is the will of my Father…….everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life….”
Everyone who is clothed as he should be (in the Wedding Parable). Clothed in Christ. Invited….yes…. but only ‘given’ if he is clothed in Christ.
When I was a Calvinist….. I used to do like our friends here do….. just repeat the same 40-50 verses over and over.
When I read huge chunks of the Bible each day…..and saw thousands of verses that conflict with Calvinism (in every form possible, and every book) …I decided to re-look at the go-to verses.
Remember now…….these are the main verses. These are the show-stoppers. The “you shall not pass!” verses that end all arguments.
Really?
John 6? Really? That’s a show-stopper?
I then began to be rather embarrassed to have pulled out John 6 at every turn without really even looking to see it in context. I mean sure one can see it the way a Calvinist sees it. But one can easily see it otherwise, with no great effort.
Seeing it otherwise allows me to ALSO freely see the thousands of times when “The Sovereign Lord” says “I did not want you to….” “Why did you not come when I called…..” “I did not plan for you to …..” “It did not even enter my mind that you…..”
Oh so nice to re-examine our presuppositions! I’m free to hear the message of the Bible!! (Before, the message of the Bible was: “God planned everything, even your sin. Dismissed.”)
Christ says, “Whoever comes to me shall not hunger…”
Christ says, “Come to me all you who labor and need rest”
Christ says, “Seek first the kingdom. Knock and it will be opened” (not: it is opened for you 00.15%, no need to knock)
Christ says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem…..I wanted to gather you ….but you would not!”
Christ says, “When I am lifted up I will draw all men to myself….”
Christ says, “If any man comes after me let him deny himself…..take up his cross….follow me….”
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.
Paul says “Whosoever will may come…” (Funny, if you google that you will find the top 30 entries are Calvinist sites telling how that verse cannot possibly mean what it looks like!)
James tells us “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you….”
Hebrews tells us….And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
The whole Bible tells us, “Look and live!” The ALL of the Bible tells us “choose life!”
Excellent post!! Thanks FOH :-]