“…there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” – Romans 3:11
In an effort to demonstrate that all people have fallen short of the glory of God and broken His law, Paul quotes from Psalm 14:2-3, which says:
“The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
There are basically two theological approaches for interpreting this passage:
(1) Calvinistic Approach: Apart from a Divine irresistible work of regeneration (by which God changes a chosen individual’s nature and desires), mankind cannot willingly seek to know, understand, or follow God.
(2) Non-Calvinistic (Traditionalist) Approach: Apart from God’s gracious initiative in bringing His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel appeal, no one can merit salvation or consistently seek to obey God in a way that will attain his own righteousness.
The contrast between these two perspectives can be illustrated by this simple question: Does proof that I am incapable of calling the president on the telephone also prove that I am incapable of answering the telephone if the president were to call me? Of course not, yet that is essentially the principle a Calvinist is assuming in their theological approach to this text.
Calvinists read this text to mean that our lack of initiative somehow proves our inability to respond positively to His initiative. They presume that God’s work in sending His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel, calling for all to be reconciled through faith in Christ, is insufficient to enable the lost to respond in faith. But the text simply never says this.
In Romans chapter 3:10-20 the apostle is seeking to prove that no one can attain righteousness by means of the law. But in verse 21 he shifts to reveal a righteousness that can be obtained by means of grace through faith in Christ.
Calvinists seem to think that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness by means of the law that they must equally be unable to obtain righteousness by means of grace through faith in Christ. This, however, is never established anywhere in the pages of Scripture.
Of course, we all can affirm that no one is righteous with regard to the demands of the law. But there have been many throughout the pages of Scripture who have been declared righteous by means of grace through faith.
Calvinists wrongly assume that because mankind is unable to fully keep the demands of the law that they are equally unable to admit their inability to keep those demands and trust in the One who has. Again, this is simply never established in the Bible. HERE>
Proof that mankind is morally incapable of earning their own righteousness by doing good works is not proof that mankind is morally incapable of believing and trusting in the righteousness of another.
It must also be understood that placing one’s trust in the righteousness of Christ is not earning one’s own righteousness. Those who trust in Christ are graciously imputed with His righteousness, they are not earning their own.
If we go back to examine the context of Paul’s original quote in Psalm 14, we read that he is specifically speaking of “the fool” who says, “there is no God,” and then he contrasts between the “evil doers” and “His people…the generation of the righteous.”
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good…Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord? There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. – Psalm 14:1; 4-5
Now, a Calvinist can make the theological argument that “the fool” who says “there is no God”does so because he could not have done otherwise due to an inborn nature sovereignly decreed by God as a result of the Fall. And the Calvinist can attempt to make the case that “the generation of the righteous” who are considered “his people” were made so by some kind of irresistible working of God. In contrast, a Traditionalist can argue that these “fools” trade the truth of God in for lies by denying His existence with a libertarian free choice, and those who become “His” do so by grace through a libertarianly free faith response. Either way, that is the point of contention — neither side can just assume their position (see question begging fallacy).
It is the Calvinist’s burden to prove that fallen man is born morally incapable of responding in faith to God’s inspired and powerful appeal to be reconciled from that fall. They have to demonstrate how our fallen condition prevents us from responding willingly.
Additionally, Calvinists need to explain why a just God would seal mankind in a fallen/disabled condition from birth and still hold them responsible for their rejection of God’s appeals, even though they have no control over their naturally disabled condition and subsequent “choices” to reject God’s genuine offer of forgiveness.
Also, Calvinists need to explain how their interpretation of Romans 3:11 fits with other teachings of scripture about man’s responsibility to seek God, such as:
“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,” – Acts 17:26-27
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” -Isaiah 55:6-7
“Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who do his just commands; seek righteousness; seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the anger of the Lord.” -Zephaniah 2:3
“And he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord.” -2 Chronicles 12:14
“Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O Lord.” –Psalms 83:16
“Then Jehoshaphat was afraid and set his face to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.” -2 Chronicles 20:3
“For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.” –Luke 12:30-31
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” -Romans 2:6-8
“And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.” –Psalms 9:10
“And those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord, the God of their fathers.” –2 Chronicles 11:16
Needless to say, the Bible certainly treats fallen men as if they are genuinely responsible (response-able) to His appeals and offers of grace and forgiveness. On what basis do Calvinists rest their presumption that, as a consequence of the sin of another, God has decreed that mankind would be born with “Total Inability” to respond willingly to the gospel?
This is a dogma yet to be found explicitly taught in the Bible.
Daily through the Bible brings me to Jeremiah 35.
18 Then Jeremiah said to the family of the Rekabites, “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘You have obeyed the command of your forefather Jehonadab and have followed all his instructions and have done everything he ordered.’ 19 Therefore this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Jehonadab son of Rekab will never fail to have a descendant to serve me.’”
————-
He makes sure we know who He is…. “the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel”
Then He commends them for obeying (which the others did not do). He is referring to the “chosen people” here. All have the history and memory of being rescued from Egypt (Passover: applied blood). Yet some of them disobey and some dont.
RH and the Calvinists regularly tell us “everyone would obey if given grace-faith.” But they are just making that up. It is not in the Bible.
What is in the Bible is that part of God’s chosen people obeyed, and part didn’t. They made choices. And God commends them for the good ones. Then rewards them.
This aint rocket science folks. Let’s not get all confused just cuz some Greek-philosophy-inspired Augustine then inspired Calvin, who inspired Sproul. Yada yada….
Just read the Bible! God is reacting to man’s actions. Clear and simple. How else can He tell us that?
Over and over He calls Himself the Sovereign Lord and then says some simple, clear “obedience” or “commendation” or “reward” statement. None of that implies that He is orchestrating the whole thing and only making us think that our choices and actions have real non-pre-scripted consequences.
Today’s reading includes 1 Timothy 6
10 For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.
—————-
Naturally Calvinists and 1-point Baptists will say “they wander from” but then return to the true faith.
If Calvinists are right that it is a given-faith…. some of the doses must be a bit short…. people wandering from it and all.
Many people read this wandering the same as those who did not “stay in the house” for Passover…or one of the “sower” seeds on the ground who believed for a while.
Naturally Calvinists and 1-point Baptists will say “they wander from” but then return to the true faith.
br.d
Unless those whom they are talking about are those whom (as Calvin’s teaches) have been ordained a false salvation.
He gives false salvation to these as a -quote “savor of greater condemnation” – temporarily
Eventually he will -quote “strike them with greater blindness”
Now how does the Calvinist know whom among the Calvinist flock have been ordained the true salvation vs the false?
They read each others behavior like one reads tea-leaves.
They look into the cup of one’s behaviors – looking for “good” vs “bad” omens
Questioning Calvinism’s double-speak talking-points is a “bad” omen.
Believing every word one is told without critical thinking is a “good” omen.
Getting on a blog sight and faithfully reciting a library of memorized double-speak talking-points is a “more sure” omen – and also serves to give one a little raised status within his group. Men specifically have more of a propensity or desire for status within their social structure.
Thought blocking techniques which work to prevent the mind from critically examining central dogma – provides emotional relief and allows the individual to shake off thoughts of “False Hope”.
The mind is conditioned to focus solely on assuming one is a member of the “elect” few – who have been given the “DIVINE GNOSIS”.
A byproduct of this focus is often religious pride – some more – some less – depending upon the individual
But the end result – is the mind is locked in a cage – designed to reinforce the belief system and prevent the conscience from raising questions.
An excellent book on this subject is: “Freedom of the Mind” by Dr. Steven Hassan
Let’s keep going in 1 Timothy. The next verses….
11 But you, Timothy, are a man of God; so run from all these evil things. Pursue righteousness and a godly life, along with faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight for the true faith. Hold tightly to the eternal life to which God has called you, which you have declared so well before many witnesses.
——–
— “run from all these evil things” … [that are making the others wander]
— “Pursue righteousness and a godly life” [Pursue implies responsibility here]
— “…along with faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness.” [What? Pursue faith!!? Calvinists tell us we have nothing to do with given-faith]
— “Fight the good fight for the true faith.” [Why does given-faith need to be fought for?]
— “Hold tightly to the eternal life…” [Why does eternal life need to be held tightly to? Calvinism and the “P” of TULIP tell us there is no holding involved….. whatsoever.]
Rinse, rinse, rinse….. God’s word is rinsing Calvinism from my mind….
FOH writes, “Rinse, rinse, rinse….. God’s word is rinsing Calvinism from my mind….”
Yet, Paul will also say, “I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day,” and then, “God who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus,” and “if God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”
Maybe you are actually rinsing God’s word from your mind.
rhutchin
Maybe you are actually rinsing God’s word from your mind.
br.d
More precisely – Calvin’s god’s word.
And at the same time casting off every weight and sin – including Calvinism’s strategically misleading double-speak language :-]
if you read the bible it is full of warnings, commands to do good, reminders to seek and follow God.
A lot of characters in the bible, although they have direct contact with God himself or they have experienced life changing events from God they still chose to sin/evil.
That proves that Man can have his own choice, and the second point proves that even if God is reaching out to man, humans are still capable of resisting His calls.
Please explain how this is possible if God controls everything:
Genesis 6:6
And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Regret? Grieve? Are you trying to say God regrets His own decision? and He is grieved by doing things to Himself?
Why will Jesus ask his disciples talk about their faith if all that faith came from Him anyway?
25 The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”
26 He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.
A proper reading of the bible, without any presuppositions will never make you a calvinist.
More daily reading in 1 Timothy 6.
20 Timothy, guard what God has entrusted to you. Avoid godless, foolish discussions with those who oppose you with their so-called knowledge. 21 Some people have wandered from the faith by following such foolishness.
———-
Paul is really telling Timothy to “guard what he has” …. cuz some “have wandered from the faith by following such foolishness.”
Wandered again.
Foolishness? Waaaaaaaiiit a minute. JTL and RH tell me all the time that God has to give-faith cuz if He doesn’t the Gospel is and remains forever “foolishness.”
But now Paul is saying that some believers wander and “follow foolishness.”
Let me see if I have this straight:
Man is “too-dead” to hear God’s call. The Gospel is just foolishness to him. Nothing to do…. just foolishness.
Man has to be specially regenerated (made-alive) because God’s eternal Word and the Cross are just not enough.
Once regenerated, he has one choice…. an irresistible one. He makes the “free-choice” with his given-faith, to irresistibly follow Christ.
Once following Him, man cannot wander away.
Scriptures that say that people have “wandered from the faith” and “followed foolishness” must not mean what they say.
Did I get that right?
I think you have the wrong passage to be arguing against calvinism with. In my mind, calvinism is a new gnosticism, which is what Paul is admonishing Timothy to avoid. He says to not waste time arguing in godless discussions with people like that because it can cause you to wander from the faith. I know people who have gone to college with a fiery heart set against calvinism and left accepting all of TULIP. I know of young people who have had fiery hearts set at proving evolution false and went on to become hardcore atheists.
To me, the question is “What is my heart set on the most?” If my heart is set on God and His true teachings, then calvinism will automatically appear false and I won’t fall for it. If I’m focused purely on arguing calvinism, then I’m not growing spiritually, open to false teachings.
MichaelB
Thanks,
I was a Calvinist. I am just occasionally sharing from my daily Scripture readings how the Scripture rebut Calvinism, and how I got out.
Michael B
In my mind, Calvinism is a new gnosticism
br.d
Wonderful Observation Michael!
It has been my position for years that Calvinism evolved from Augustine synchronizing Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism into Catholic doctrine. Both Gnostisism and NeoPlatonism held to DUALISM where there is no line of demarcation between good and evil.
Michael B
If I’m focused purely on arguing Calvinism, then I’m not growing spiritually, open to false teachings.
br.d
Yes – I would agree with this – in regard to focusing on it “purely”.
But we do see authors in the N.T. warning believers against Gnostic doctrine – fables etc.
SOT101 is a web-site dedicated to shining a flashlight on those elements of Calvinism that reveal it to be dangerous.
Today’s Proverb reading…
Proverbs 25:28 (NLT)
28 A person without self-control
is like a city with broken-down walls.
——-
What kind of control? Determinist, already-scripted control? Nah…. self-control. We see that word a lot in Scripture. What can that mean in a determinist-Calvinist world?
FOH writes, ’28 A person without self-control is like a city with broken-down walls.
——-
What kind of control?”
Better question – What kind of person is without self-control? Paul tells us, “…the fruit of the Spirit is…self-control;…” and “…no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” Then, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit…”
You ask, “What can that mean in a determinist-Calvinist world?” The person without self-control is the unbeliever.
rhutchin
You ask, “What can that mean in a determinist-Calvinist world?” The person without self-control is the unbeliever.
br.d
-John Calvin – Institutes
– Men do nothing save at the SECRET INSTIGATION of god.
– Men can deliberately do nothing unless he ***INSPIRE IT***
– The hand of God rules the interior affections….[they can do nothing] unless he worked in their hearts TO **MAKE** THEM WILL before they acted
– I have already shown clearly enough that god is THE AUTHOR of ***ALL*** those things
Daily reading gets me to Jeremiah 29:
16 ‘This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies, the God of Israel, says: I will do to this city everything I have threatened. I will send disaster, not prosperity. You will see its destruction, 17 but I will rescue you from those you fear so much. 18 Because you trusted me, I will give you your life as a reward. I will rescue you and keep you safe. I, the Lord, have spoken!’”
——–
The Lord makes sure we know who is talking (all caps Lord means Yahweh, Sovereign One)…. “of Heaven’s Armies, the God of Israel.” Really big Sovereign title.
He is gonna send disaster. But He says through Jeremiah “Because you trusted me” he will spare the listener.
What does that mean “because you trusted me”? I mean really? Is there NO PART of it that comes from the person who trusts?
Calvinist-determinist-fatalists say “No FOH, no part. All the trust was given to the person. God is really saying ‘I gave you the trust you irresistibly had to use and I will now reward you for trusting. And I will remind everyone reading that you are rewarded for ‘trusting’ me.'”
Did I get that right Calvinist friends?
Get ready. I will either be accused of setting up a straw man, of misrepresenting Calvinism, or of being a universalist (or all three!).
Trusting God is a huge problem for the Calvinist.
The human mind learns to trust based upon two factors:
Consistency and Repeatability over time.
In regard to Calvin’s god’s will for each unique individual Calvinist – the Calvinist has no absolute assurance of anything.
It may be the case – Calvin’s god designed and ordained the individual Calvinist to salvation.
It may just as easily be the case – Calvin’s god designed and ordained him for damnation.
And (as Calvin teaches) is temporarily holding salvation out to him as a -quote “savor of greater condemnation”.
The indicators the Calvinists has to go on – is observing their own behavior or mental state.
If they consistently question the possibility they are designed for damnation – then its time to consider that as their reality.
Some actually go in that direction and fall away.
The Calvinists watching them leave proclaim they must not have been saved in the first place.
And yet for how many years before leaving did they believe they were saved – only to find out otherwise?
Calvin’s god’s will is hidden behind the veil of the -quote “secret counsel of his will” which no man can know.
The human mind simply cannot trust what it cannot know.
FOH writes, ‘Calvinist-determinist-fatalists say “No FOH, no part. All the trust was given to the person. God is really saying ‘I gave you the trust you irresistibly had to use and I will now reward you for trusting. And I will remind everyone reading that you are rewarded for ‘trusting’ me.’”
Did I get that right Calvinist friends?”
Yep. So, why not explain how it is that one person will trust in God and another will not without God’s involvement. You avoid the hard questions and then gripe when Calvinists deal with them.
rhutchin
You avoid the hard questions and then gripe when Calvinists deal with them.
br.d
Just remember – the microscopic double-think world of a Calvinist – is the prison cell he was predestined to live in.
He’s been conditioned to believe – he’s as free inside the cell – as he would be if he were outside of it. :-]
In an odd way, Calvinists, throw a red herring at us. They say that if the invitation was for all (then for some red herring reason) all would naturally believe. What? Why?
Luke 17:
11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”
14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed.
15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. 16 He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.
17 Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18 Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” 19 Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”
———-
Jesus tells 10 lepers to go see the priest (condition!) to be healed. The healing was 100% from Him… but with a condition.
They went and were cleansed.
One of them came back to Christ. “Why not all of them?” cries the Calvinist. “Surely they all would!” cries the Calvinist.
Then Jesus tells him “your faith has made you well.”
Wow….. in simple encounter with Christ we see that not everyone responds the same to Christ….AND we see Christ once again say “your faith has made you well.”
FOH writes, “In an odd way, Calvinists, throw a red herring at us. They say that if the invitation was for all (then for some red herring reason) all would naturally believe. What? Why?”
An invitation to all sinners presumes the ability to make a rational decision through a truly free will. The rejection of salvation is an irrational decision and points to a will still enslaved to sin. Free will points to a truly free will with the ability to make a rational decision with acceptance of salvation a rational choice. I don’t see a red herring in this. What is your problem with this?
rhutchin
An invitation to all sinners presumes the ability to make a rational decision through a truly free will. The rejection of salvation is an irrational decision and points to a will still enslaved to sin. Free will points to a truly free will with the ability to make a rational decision with acceptance of salvation a rational choice. I don’t see a red herring in this. What is your problem with this?
br.d
Notice how Calvin’s god decreeing every neurological impulse people will ever have – is curiously omitted from this picture.
Calvin’s god is like the bunny rabbit – whom a Calvinist magician can make appear and disappear at will! :-]
Too funny!!
br.d
There is the God-decreed-everything issues (you mentioned) teaching that man has no free (the free will that RH mentions). That’s true.
But the red herring here is the automatic idea that if a person does not make a good choice he is enslaved to sin. Ipso facto… Calvin says it, so it must be so!
“The rejection of salvation is an irrational decision and points to a will still enslaved to sin.”
We still make bad choices as believers! Are we enslaved to sin?
“The rejection of [patience God is giving us] is an irrational decision and points to a will still enslaved to sin.”
“The rejection of [compassion God wants to give us] is an irrational decision and points to a will still enslaved to sin.”
“The rejection of [joy that God wants us to have] is an irrational decision and points to a will still enslaved to sin.”
“The rejection of [kindness] is an irrational decision and points to a will still enslaved to sin.”
It is all stacked on Total Depravity. That is why Calvinist must say that a non-believer can do NO good thing. Ever. Wickedness all the time ….to everyone. If they relent on this (and JTL did) then boom! man must not be a complete slave to sin.
If he is not a complete slave to sin… all wicked all the time, then he can make the choice to be patient / kind/ fair once in a while.
Then he can make the choice to believe in Christ.
This aint rocket science. Man aint that “dead”. Just like we are “dead to sin” and buried in Christ” and we are still alive enough to sin.
Yup I totally agree!
I think you hit it on the head when you said “Its all stacked”
It really is completely and totally black & white thinking.
OOPs – now I’ve gone and done it!
That monkey with his grip on the banana – stuck inside the jar – glued to the floor – just came into my mind again! :-]
br.d writes, “Notice how Calvin’s god decreeing every neurological impulse people will ever have – is curiously omitted from this picture.”
Let us recognize that God declared that Adam’s sin would have consequences one of which was that the “neurological impulses” would be generated in an environment where the mind is controlled by a sin nature – this by God’s decree. So what? Is there a point here?
rhutchin
Let us recognize that God declared that Adam’s sin would have consequences one of which was that the “neurological impulses” would be generated in an environment where the mind is controlled by a sin nature – this by God’s decree. So what? Is there a point here?
br.d
A good dose of double-speak – thanks rhutchin for another good example. :-]
I can address consequences – from a RATIONAL perspective
There are logical consequences of Calvin’s god’s decrees (which occur at the foundation of the world before man exists) – and which establish INFALLIBLY every neurological impulse every person will ever have.
So firstly:
The logical consequence is simple.
The only neurological impulses which persons will have are those which Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVED and then decreed them to have.
Since the decree is infallible – NO other neurological impulse will exist – other than those decreed to infallibly exist.
Secondly
The term “generated” is so strategically ambiguous I won’t go into the Calvinist tail-chasing mode to trifle over it.
However – Calvin’s god is stated as the AUTHOR of every neurological impulse – therefore each one is BIRTHED in the mind of Calvin’s god.
-quote:
“But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him NOT ONLY WILLING [them] but [being] the AUTHOR of them.” (John Calvin – Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God)
Thirdly:
On the business of the sin nature – this is simply another logical consequence of decrees – just like every neurological impulse.
Like everything else that comes to pass – it is FIRST CONCEIVED – decreed – AUTHORED in Calvin’s god’s mind – at the foundation of the world – a point in which man does not yet exist.
Daily reading in 2 Timothy 1.
15 As you know, everyone from the province of Asia has deserted me—even Phygelus and Hermogenes.
16 May the Lord show special kindness to Onesiphorus and all his family because he often visited and encouraged me. He was never ashamed of me because I was in chains. 17 When he came to Rome, he searched everywhere until he found me. 18 May the Lord show him special kindness on the day of Christ’s return. And you know very well how helpful he was in Ephesus.
——-
Does any of this mean anything? All those believers from Asia deserted Paul!
The Lord will “reward” Onesiphorus (and his family!) because of his actions. What does that mean? You can be a deserter or one who does good things and is rewarded. Which will it be? You choose.
Is this just “historical information” or is it meant to teach us something? It inspires me to choose well. Anyone else?
FOH
The Lord will “REWARD” Onesiphorus (and his family!) because of his actions. What does that mean? You can be a deserter or one who does good things and is REWARDED. Which will it be? You choose.
Is this just “historical information” or is it meant to teach us something? It inspires me to choose well. Anyone else?
br.d
Excellent point FOH!
Jesus says: “Does the master THANK the servant for doing the very thing the master determined the servant do…. I think not!
Similarly:
Does the master THANK the robot for doing the very thing the master determined the robot do… I think not!
It makes perfect sense then – that Calvinism is classified a ROBOT/PUPPET theology.
Today’s Psalm is 91.
The Lord says, “I will rescue those who love me.
I will protect those who trust in my name.
15 When they call on me, I will answer;
I will be with them in trouble.
I will rescue and honor them.
16 I will reward them with a long life
and give them my salvation.”
——–
Rescue those who love me.
Protect those who trust.
Answer those who call.
Rescue and honor them.
Reward them with a long life.
Give them my salvation.
God to us: love Me, trust Me, call on Me…. and I will rescue you, protect you, answer you, reward you, and save you.
FOH,
You and I were discussing the problem of the degree of dishonesty consistent in Calvinist language.
Look at this recent statement by rhutchin and tell me if you don’t recognize his willingness to move into the realm of justifying outright lying.
This is what I meant when I said “Calvinists try to not get to close to blatant dishonesty – but sometimes they’re willing to”
rhutchin
October 22, 2018 at 10:33 am
Only the Universalist say that God wills all men to be saved.
br.d,
It is not about lying. We cannot accuse all our Calvinist friends of lying or being part of a deceptive plot. More and more young people are growing a beard and heading into the YRR world (and getting aggressive). I have many extended family members on the YRR wave.
They are not becoming liars, but are sincerely thinking that this honors God more.
They are also “returning to tradition” (even really old hymns) to avoid modern music, seeker-friendliness, the faith movement, the emerging church, open theism, Pentecostalism, etc. It is comforting to them. It is “safer.” Then they circle the wagons, preach to the choir, call (Arminian) Spurgeon the “Prince of Preachers,” laud baby-baptizing Sproul as a great theologian, hold up Mary-worshiping Augustine, hold up slavery-defending Jonathan Edwards, hold up ‘heretic’ burning Calvin…. and let people get away with all kinds of things just cuz they hold to the “doctrines of grace.”
The “lying” part comes in their confusion about “two wills” (why not 3 or 4?). He wants all men to be saved…. but He wants to have some be condemned even more. He wants men to stay faithful to their wives…. but His sovereign will was that Rev. Reformed Pastor have an affair with 3 women in the church. If the affair happened…. it must have been God’s sovereign will.
So that is how they can say “no it was not God’s will that he have an affair” one day and “apparently it was God’s will that he have an affair” another day —– and not be “lying”. It is the multiple, conflicting wills that allows them to say blatant contradictions.
“God desires all men to be saved.” This one is even trickier since they really mean “God desires ‘all kinds of men’ to be saved.” so they dont even have to use the “two-wills” card. They only have to use the “both Jew and Gentile” card.
It may be the case that a Calvinist child can be indoctrinated into believing that everyone who does not embrace Calvinism is automatically a universalist.
In my mind, if that child then makes the statement rhutchin made – I wouldn’t tend to consider that lying – since a child has an immature mind – that can’t resolve the complexities of adult thinking.
There were times that I did wonder if rhuthchin was a teenager – due to some of his childish response and thinking patterns.
But I suspect he is in fact an adult.
And we quite naturally expect more from a full blown male adult man then we do from a child.
Dr. Flowers showed a video of John MacArthur making a statement so totally misrepresenting Non-Calvinists that I could not possibly give him the leeway I would give an indoctrinated child. He is a full grown man who should know better.
Sorry – when that kind of behavior comes from an adult I feel its only right to hold them accountable – and call it dishonesty.
Adults can choose to believe whatever they are told like a child does
And therefore they can make outrageous statements without it being deemed lying.
But its seems to me we hold Adult men to a much higher standard that that – especially a Christian man.
Is that not realistic?
FOH writes, “God to us: love Me, trust Me, call on Me…. and I will rescue you, protect you, answer you, reward you, and save you.”
Only a fool would reject this offer. “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God…the fool walks in darkness…this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light;”
BUT, giving praise and glory to God, Paul tells the Colossian believers, “God delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
I recall reading this much-loved Psalm in the early days of my escape from the clutches of Calvinism. I wept with joy, as I so often did and do, to rediscover the God who loves me and all men unstintingly, unquestionably. How many difficult days in my youth did I cling to such promises, believing them without a doubt and allowing me to gain sure footing when the path was difficult? I searched through my old papers and found what has always been so precious to me, a notebook in which I had hand copied many of the precious promises of the Psalms and Isaiah, along with a few others. Many times I clutched that little notebook, sometimes walking the floor in fear or worry, reciting out loud these words of promise, gaining from them the hope, faith and courage I needed to keep going. Not because I had a ‘man-centered’ faith, but a true and unfaltering faith in the love of a God who was always good, always loving and always faithful. Indeed, without God being who he is, and promising what he promises, I have nothing to have faith in. Without him, all that he has done and all that he promises to do, I have nothing. Believing in him, all that he has done and all that he promises, I have all that I need.
I knew I had come home.
Thank you for your thoughts on this passage. It is much simpler than my old approach which was to translate the greek verbs as imperfects with continuing action “like no one is continually seeking after God.” The other approach I was looking at was this is a general statement with exceptions rather than an absolute statement with no exceptions.
I pointed out that, according to Calvinism, God deliberately makes it impossible for the majority of men to be saved. RHutchin responded, “Unless you can show otherwise.” Anyone who has read our exchange can see that I have already done this. If God wants all people to find Him, it cannot be that God makes it impossible for most people to do so. It is bizarre for RHutchin to write, “God wants all people to find Him, but He will not intervene to help everyone to find Him.” The contradiction is glaring.
Using RHutchin’s own words, I will show that Calvinism inevitably calls God a liar:
RHutchin (on October 2): “God invites all people to come to Christ…”
RHutchin (on October 5): “[T]he invitation is not to the non-elect but to the elect…”
Couple this with RHutchin’s admission that Calvin’s God deliberately makes it impossible for most people to find Him, and what you have is an invitation (“God invites all people”) that is not an invitation (“the invitation is not to the non-elect”). In other words, a lie.
Contrary to Scripture, Calvinism says you can’t even have faith unless God regenerates you. Thus, Calvin’s God calls Lazarus to exit the tomb while deliberately making it impossible for the dead man to obey. Clearly God doesn’t want Lazarus to obey the call, and thus the call is insincere. Calvinism calls God a liar who taunts the non-elect with a deliberately useless gospel call. Either that, or it suggests God is too ignorant to realize the non-elect can’t respond to His sincere invitation. Both options are blasphemous, and any doctrine that teaches blasphemy cannot be true.
I rest my case.
LampStand, you don’t have to worry about people recognizing rhutchin as a gamer.
What you’ve done is diligently pursued a line of rational reasoning in the pursuit of truth.
Its well recognized that rhutchin’s interest is simply damage control for Calvinism’s image.
No one who dialogs with him over time expects integrity.
Most of what you’ll observe is simply pretense wearing different masks.
You learn and get used to expecting the various acting routines he cycles through.
I wouldn’t worry myself about it.
Actually your frustration is commendable.
Is shows your adherence to Jesus and the ethics he expects of his followers.
We simply learn not to expect that aspect of Christ from Calvinists.
When it comes to defending their faith – resorting to dishonesty is not classified as sin within their social structure.
You can thank the Lord he’s protected you from falling into that condition! :-]
You have presented very logical arguments in a respectful manner, demonstrating that what we are about is exposing the Calvinist’s error, so that all who have succumbed to it may have greater hope and faith in our gracious, loving merciful Father who has given so much to clearly demonstrate his good will toward men. I have appreciated and learned from your interactions, and am sure to do so in the future!
LS8
If I could expand on your idea.
Calvinism is actually saying that Christ stands in front of all the tombs in that area and calls out “I want all of you to rise!” But actually He is only giving “regeneration” to Lazarus. Lazarus comes out, but Christ “wanted” all of them to come…. but not wanted in a way that would cause them to come.
The veterans on this site would say two more things to you:
1. Yes, you are correct that Calvinism displays Christ calling all men insincerely. A very insincere call.
2. This has been pointed out from many biblical passages and many times to RH, so dont be disappointed when he gives you some irrelevant, unrelated, deflecting, “universalist!!” answer.
‘Come’ all who are dead and cannot hear. ‘Believe’ all who cannot believe. ‘Live’ all who are hopelessly dead.
If God alone has the power that enables a man to ‘Come, believe and live’, yet withholds that power, no intellectually honest person can assert that God ‘desires’ that deliberately unassisted man to be saved.
TSOO
If God alone has the power that enables a man to ‘Come, believe and live’, yet withholds that power, no intellectually honest person can assert that God ‘desires’ that deliberately unassisted man to be saved.
br.d
Well said TSOO!
Calvinists many generations ago – learned how to get around honesty – by virtue of 1001 sophist arguments.
Jesus without fail – speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
This is the language model of the God of scripture
If Calvinism were to adhere to that language model – it would go the way of the dinosaur.
In order to survive it doesn’t
This aspect alone creates a diving line between Calvinism and Christ.
And a dividing line between its language and the language of scripture.
TS00 writes, “If God alone has the power that enables a man to ‘Come, believe and live’, yet withholds that power, no intellectually honest person can assert that God ‘desires’ that deliberately unassisted man to be saved.”
Then the non-Calvinist system is intellectually dishonest because that is exactly what it says – non-Calvisim only allows God to enable a person to come to Christ and then only if he chooses to do so but not believe and live.
rhutchin
non-Calvisim only allows God to enable a person to come to Christ and then only if he chooses to do so but not believe and live.
br.d
This statement shows little maturity on the subject matter.
Luke 14:5 – Then Jesus said “If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?”
Just because the child is in the a well doesn’t auto-magically mean the child (according to Calvinist double-think) is dead!
The difference between Calvinist theology and Non-Calvinist – is that Non-Calvinist theology doesn’t entail people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born.
Calvinism (aka Theological Determinism) is like Hotel California
You’re free to check out any time you like – but you can never leave. :-]
br.d writes, ‘The difference between Calvinist theology and Non-Calvinist – is that Non-Calvinist theology doesn’t entail people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born.”
Most non-Calvinist theologies hold that God is omniscient and that entails people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born.
br.d
‘The difference between Calvinist theology and Non-Calvinist – is that Non-Calvinist theology doesn’t entail people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born.”
rhutchin
Most non-Calvinist theologies hold that God is omniscient and that entails people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born.
brd
An Adult Christian would know better than to make this statement.
It shows either immaturity on this subject or dishonesty.
Calvinism is the only theology that asserts that (at the foundation of the world before man exists) the *WAY* Calvin’s god’s omniscience knows what choice Adam will make – is that of Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVING, DETERMINING, RENDERING-CERTAIN – not only every choice Adam will make – but every neurological impulse Adam will have.
On Calvin’s scheme therefore divine foreknowledge (i.e., omniscience) is NOT via looking into the future with OBSERVATION.
On Calvin’s scheme Calvin’s god is the SOURCE and ORIGIN of every choice and every neurological impulse.
Calvinist Theology is completely unique in this regard.
And that is one of the reasons Calvinism represents a tiny fraction of the Christian population.
However, thank you rhutchin for affirming Calvin’s god {programmed) every neurological impulse the creature will ever have. :-]
“br.d writes, ‘The difference between Calvinist theology and Non-Calvinist – is that Non-Calvinist theology doesn’t entail people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born.”
Most non-Calvinist theologies hold that God is omniscient and that entails people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born.”
This is, if you’ll pardon my bluntness, either sheer stupidity or pure foolishness. RH has been on this site long enough to know that it is the false Calvinist, determinist assertion that entails ‘people having their every neurological impulse determined (programmed) before they were born’ that distinguishes the non-Calvinist from the Calvinist. If we accepted that definition of sovereignty – which RH MOST DEFINITELY knows we do not – we would not be having these discussions.
There is no way he can feign ignorance and keep saying, ‘If God is omniscient, blah, blah, blah.’ ‘If God is sovereign, blah, blah, blah’. I hold that God’s omniscience and sovereignty are unquestionable, as has nearly every commenter asked. I disagree that this sovereignty demands every neurological impulse being predetermined. This is not a difficult difference to grasp for a reasonably well-read, intelligent person. Disagree all you want, but let’s at least stop pretending that we do not understand one another’s views, or that only one possible definition of a word – the Calvinist one – exists.
The Calvinist simply wants to play the ‘We get to define all the words however we choose, and change meanings at will’ game. If you honestly don’t know how, where and why non-Calvinists disagree with Calvinists, go back and read everything written on this site, and you soon will. Just stop playing childish games that waste everyone’s time.
Supreme sovereign rights of an omniscient, omnipotent God? Yes. Tyrannical, meticulous control of every neurological impulse? No. Any questions? Go back to the beginning and come back when you are finished.
Awesome post TSOO!!
I especially noted these two statements:
– The Calvinist simply wants to play the ‘We get to define all the words however we choose, and change meanings at will’ game.
– Just stop playing childish games that waste everyone’s time.
There is a huge degree of truth discernment here!
Well said! :-]
TS00,
You nailed it again here.
I gave up long ago responding to RH, when I kept seeing those insincere “So what’s that problem here?” or “So what are you saying” or “Poor FOH can’t tell us what the Scripture is saying,” or “no one can seem to make their point clear,” not to mention all the debasing “sleeping in class” remarks.
I agree with you that disagreeing is one thing, but constantly accusing the other guys of “not explaining” (see Brian’s John 6:44 explained 4 times!)…. or constantly saying “even non-Calvinists teach that……. [then putting in whatever he wants]” …. or saying “I see no problem here,” (when there is in fact a huge difference) all show a certain disconnect that I have no time for. I can’t believe people still respond.
Sometimes I will see something in an RH response that makes me think of clear Scriptural push-back information. But I only comment and post that for future reference for those hoping to be able to withstand the YRR wave coming at them.
Again, Scripture, Scripture, Scripture! It is massively on the non-Calvinist side…. so let’s show it!
I dont need to talk about who is a full or semi-Polynesian, or super-man-lapsarian.
TS00 writes, “If we accepted that definition of sovereignty – which RH MOST DEFINITELY knows we do not – we would not be having these discussions.”
When you get a definition that works the way you want, let everyone know what it si.
TS00 writes, “If we accepted that definition of sovereignty – which RH MOST DEFINITELY knows we do not – we would not be having these discussions.”
When you get a definition that works the way you want, let everyone know what it si.
br.d
Too funny!
This is another one of those “you’ve never explained it” examples.
I still say God gave mankind Calvinism as a form of entertainment! :-]
br.d,
As you said, another deflection saying “you have never defined it.” Back to TS00’s idea that disagreeing is one thing… but constantly saying “no one has ever ‘splained your side dude” is just insincere.
But understanding insincere claims is fundamental in understanding Calvinism.
“Come unto Me all [well…. a few of you] who labor and are heavy burden [well, “too-dead” actually] and I will give you [well, some of you] rest [well, not complete rest since you will still be slaves to sin even though dead to sin. You have to synergistically work hard at your sanctification].
FOH
understanding insincere claims is fundamental in understanding Calvinism.
“Come unto Me all [well…. a few of you] who labor and are heavy burden [well, “too-dead” actually] and I will give you [well, some of you] rest [well, not complete rest since you will still be slaves to sin even though dead to sin. You have to synergistically work hard at your sanctification].
br.d
Wonderfully stated!! :-]
FOH is absolutely correct
This has often been called Calvinism’s “wink-wink” offer of salvation.
Calvin’s god makes a “sincere” offer of Salvation to every soul – and surely that means you – “wink-wink”.
Calvin’s god wills all men to be saved “wink-wink”
Adam – its not my will that you eat the forbidden fruit – “wink-wink”
Calvin’s god has given you the freedom to determine your own choices and your own fate – “wink-wink”
This is part of Calvinism’s AS-IF thinking model
Where [A] is True AS-IF [A] is False.
When I came to recognize Calvinists live in this wold of self-contradictions – their double-speak language made perfect sense.
br.d,
Paul tells us in Acts 17:30…
“…but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
All people (not all kinds of people), everywhere…. repent!
Calvinism: But you cant. Unless you get a special does of regeneration. You are commanded to…but impeded by God’s withholding of grace.
But wait there’s more..
31 “For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
He gave proof of this to EVERYONE by raising Christ. That is why I think the Cross is enough. The Word is enough. Calvinists feel that the Cross is not enough. The Resurrected Word is not enough…. one must have his dose and be made-alive first. But here Paul says it was proof to EVERYONE.
We are are often proposed a red herring. “Why would anyone offered this life turn it down?” “Only a fool would turn it down.” These are supposed to be some kind of “proof” that it was not really offered cuz all people would say yes if it was. ((anyone who is saying this has no kids!!!))
But….
32 “When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, ‘We want to hear you again on this subject.'”
Some sneered and some thought …..humm…. let’s hear that again…. you might “persuade” me, if you “reason with me” (this is what Paul says he does).
33 “At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.”
Calvinists: “See…. God made some of them believe.”
Average reader: “What? You are making that up! Scripture never says that. It even mentions the people by name (like it does in Hebrews 11) giving it a very personal touch.”
FOH writes, “Paul tells us in Acts 17:30…
“…but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
All people (not all kinds of people), everywhere…. repent!
Calvinism: But you cant. Unless you get a special does of regeneration. You are commanded to…but impeded by God’s withholding of grace.”
Fine, let’s grant that people are able to obey God in this respect (even though Calvinist don’t think that is possible – but they can be wrong). Calvinism says that those who continue to reject Christ and salvation do need a “special does of regeneration.” Seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.
rhutchin
Calvinism says that those who continue to reject Christ and salvation do need a “special does of regeneration.” Seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.
br.d
The problem with any statement which begins with “Calvinism says ” – is the fact that Calvinist language is so much double-speak.
A Calvinist will say [A] one minute and [NOT A] the next.
Dialog with a person in that condition – can be likened to chasing a greased pig. :-]
LS8 writes, “I pointed out that, according to Calvinism, God deliberately makes it impossible for the majority of men to be saved.”
If it is true that God “deliberately makes it impossible for the majority of men to be saved,” then it would be nice if LS8 would explain what he sees God doing to bring about this result. No Calvinist says this from what I can tell.
Calvinism agrees with the non-Calvinist on the invitation to all for salvation (Calvinism calls this common grace). This means that both agree that God provides a synergistic process whereby people can choose salvation and that decision is theirs to make. Let’s grant that some people are saved through this synergistic process (recognizing that the Calvinist argues that none would be saved this way). There are still many people who reject salvation and it is this group with which Calvinism is concerned. Those who reject salvation under the synergistic process are called “Totally Depraved.” Now God exercises His free will in a monergistic process to save whom He will (Calvinism calls this saving grace).
Then, “Using RHutchin’s own words, I will show that Calvinism inevitably calls God a liar:
RHutchin (on October 2): “God invites all people to come to Christ…”
RHutchin (on October 5): “[T]he invitation is not to the non-elect but to the elect…”
As explained above, the invitation to all is called “common grace” by Calvinists and involves a synergistic process whereby God makes salvation available by the proclamation of the gospel, and people choose whether they want salvation. The invitation to the elect involves those who reject salvation under the common grace, synergistic process, and here, God has chosen whom He will save in a monergistic process and provides saving grace – an internal invitation or call – to those He chose to save. I don’t see that this makes God a liar. If LS8 thinks it does, an explanation would be nice.
Then, “Calvinism says you can’t even have faith unless God regenerates you.”
Actually, Calvinists say that a person cannot have faith unless God gives it to them. Regeneration provides the “good soil” fertilized by faith that is ready to receive the word and that word prospers.
Then, “Thus, Calvin’s God calls Lazarus to exit the tomb while deliberately making it impossible for the dead man to obey.”
Are you saying that God killed Lazarus so that he could no longer respond to Jesus? Adam sinned and he and those born to him suffered the consequences of that sin. We see this in Adam being driven from the garden into a world that was harsher than the garden and death has now become a factor and all will physically die as everyone is denied access tot he tree of life. Then there is the damaged relationship between God and people. I don’t know what your argument is here.
rhutchin
If it is true that God “deliberately makes it impossible for the majority of men to be saved,” then it would be nice if LS8 would explain what he sees God doing to bring about this result. No Calvinist says this from what I can tell.
br.d
Of course Calvinists don’t say it.
If Calvinists spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Calvinism would go the way of the dinosaur.
Calvinists don’t speak truth statements – they recite double-speak talking points.
A fact SOT101 readers know very well.
Now to the question:
A logical impossibility is defined as a proposition or conjoined propositions which either resolve to logical contradiction, or attempt to breach well established laws of logic.
For example the law of non-contradiction or principle of bi-valance which stipulates that a proposition can only have one truth value.
It cannot be both true and false at the same time
Of course this is the very law Calvinism will always breech by virtue of its inherent double-minded propositions.
For example a round-square is a logical impossibility, and it is logically impossible to be a tall man without being tall.
Calvin’s god determines all things in every part AS-IF he doesn’t – is another logical impossibility.
In Calvinism it follows:
Calvin’s god determines ALL things that will have existence.
No event can have existence unless Calvin’s god decrees it to have existence.
Whatever does not exist – is not available to man.
When Calvin’s god decrees salvation will exist for a given individual – then salvation is accessible to that individual
Firstly, because the decree brings it into existence.
For those individuals to whom Calvin’s god does not decree salvation to exist – it does not exist for them.
And whatever does not exist for that individual is not accessible to that individual.
Salvation for that individual is therefore as much a logical impossibility as a square-circle.
Thus LampStand recognizes Calvin’s god makes salvation deliberately – a logical impossibility for those individuals.
Because it does not exist for them.
But we know the Calvinist will try to make it exist and NOT exist at the same time.
That’s the nature of double-speak. :-]
Bible reading today takes me to Jeremiah 42-44.
44:20 Then Jeremiah said to all of them, men and women alike, who had given him that answer, 21 “Do you think the Lord did not know that you and your ancestors, your kings and officials, and all the people were burning incense to idols in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 22 It was because the Lord could no longer bear all the disgusting things you were doing that he made your land an object of cursing—a desolate ruin without inhabitants—as it is today. 23 All these terrible things happened to you because you have burned incense to idols and sinned against the Lord. You have refused to obey him and have not followed his instructions, his decrees, and his laws.”
——————
The Lord was watching and allowing all that disgusting activity. Allowing….not decreeing. Not ordaining from before time. Not His hidden will. Not His divine will. Not His secret will.
22 “It was because the Lord could no longer bear all the disgusting things you were doing that he made your land an object of cursing”
Why does the Bible say “the Lord could no longer bear”? What is He bearing…. the very things He decreed?
Let me see if I have the Calvinist position:
God ordains all our actions before time. Then we do what we are decreed to do (but “freely” of course). Then after many years of “the chosen people” (who had God’s resistible grace shown to them over and over) doing disgusting things, the “Lord can no longer bear it.”
He ordains them to do it…. “bears” it for a while…. then says He can’t bear it…. and wipes them out.
Did I get that right? Nah.
23 “All these terrible things happened to you because you have burned incense to idols and sinned against the Lord. You have refused to obey him.”
BECAUSE you have burned and sinned. BECAUSE you have refused to obey Him. (He didn’t plan it before hand).
How can God’s chosen people “refuse” to obey. Did they not have God’s grace around them for hundreds of years?
The chosen can sin…. and the not-yet chosen can hear God’s call (and be grafted in). Again…. it aint rocket science if we just read the Bible.
((ps. Think: Rahab, Ruth))
FOH writes, “The Lord was watching and allowing all that disgusting activity. Allowing….not decreeing.”
Because God is omnipotent thereby exercising complete control over the event, for God to allow is no different than for God to decree.
The, “Not ordaining from before time. Not His hidden will. Not His divine will. Not His secret will. ”
Because God is omniscient and omnipotent, all events are ordained before time.
rhutchin
Because God is omnipotent thereby exercising complete control over the event, for God to ALLOW IS NO DIFFERENT THAN for God to DECREE.
br.d
Here the terms ALLOW and DECREE are argued as logically synonymous.
There is a story – a bear had a debate with birds in the forest.
The birds argued they were the fastest creatures in the woods by virtue of their ability to fly.
Now the bear was not one to lose a debate – so he had to become inventive.
I also can fly – the bear argued.
He climbed up, and umped off a rock.
As he was falling he waved his arms – and declared – THERE! I’ve proven I can fly!
The birds were not smart enough to see through the ruse.
And the bear won the debate.
The bear’s strategy was to shift the meaning of the terms
He shifted the meaning of the term FLY – making it synonymous with the term FALL.
The truth is – these are two different terms having two different meanings.
This is called a SEMANTIC argument.
And Calvinism is full of them.
Here the term ALLOW is argued to be synonyms with the word DECREE.
In Calvinism it logically follows:
Calvin’s god can allow ONLY what he decrees – nothing more – nothing less.
It is a logical impossibility that what is decreed to infallibly occur by Calvin’s god would not be allowed by Calvin’s god.
Calvin’s god cannot PREVENT, RESTRAIN, DISALLOW anything he has decreed to infallibly occur.
Therefore the terms PERMIT and ALLOW in Calvinism are MEANINGLESS in regard to their MODALITY.
br.d writes, “Here the term ALLOW is argued to be synonyms with the word DECREE.”
Actually, this is the argument: given that God is omnipotent, that which God allows is the same as that which God decrees.
Read the full response – that was already covered.
br.d writes, ‘Read the full response – that was already covered.”
Read it again. The presumption of omnipotence was ignored.
I’m sure you’ll have an argument for how omnipotence factors in.
But if it follows history it will be shown to be superfluous :-]
br.d,
You guys could do this for days!
Omnipotence and Omniscience are the main snags here.
Sure “allow” and “decree” are key too. For instance I would say that “God decreed that man be allowed to make choices.” So in that non-Calvinist sense (absolutely non-determinist sense!) I am saying that all that man chooses to do was “decreed” by God in that God decreed man’s liberty.
Of course that is not what Calvin and his lackeys had in mind with “decree.” That is why they need compatibilism. Cuz they say He decreed in stone all actions ahead of time…. and man freely makes them. I say that He decreed in stone that man would make free choices. A person could twist this to say that I think all things are decreed…. but certainly not in the sense that a Calvinist would say that.
Omniscience is the key really. If Calvinists get to define it, then what they say makes sense.
Calvinist: God knew everything ahead of time. If He does know it before it happens, it cannot-not happen….and is fixed and determined simply by Him knowing it.
Traditional: God knew everything ahead of time. Him knowing ahead what will happen does NOT make it happen. Man chooses it, God knows it.
Open: God knows what He plans to do in the future. He knows He will win in the end and get what He wants cuz He is a zillion times smarter and stronger than man. God does not know the decisions that man has not made. This is what allows Him to have integrity when He says “I would have but you…” “I did not plan for them to….” “I had no idea they would….” and these kinds of statements found all over the Bible. This is also what allows man to avoid being fatalistic (In sha’Allah) “what will be will be.” This also allows man to NOT blame / accuse God for all sin. (Calvinism does not have that option).
So…. you are gonna go ’round and ’round with Calvinists —who pull out the “omniscience” card at will.
Yes your correct FOH.
Except Calvinists (and we know this is true because we see posts here all the time) live in a world of double-think when it comes to the decrees and omniscience.
You for example made the statement “God decreed man to be free to do x”.
And as you say – that statement makes sense in a NON-deterministic world.
But is superfluous in a deterministic world.
Calvin’s god can decree you free to be a frog if he wants to.
But if he doesn’t decree you to actually be a frog – then the freedom to be one is useless.
So in Calvinism (aka determinism) decreeing a creature to be free is superfluous.
Additionally, Calvinists are also double-thinkers when it comes to omniscience.
Take for example rhutchins argument that Calvin’s god -quote “makes an active decision not to RESTRAIN something from happening”
When one understands – in Calvinism:
1) NOTHING can come to pass unless it is decreed
2) If it is decreed – it is infallible
3) Its a logical impossibility for it NOT to come to pass
This is why the terms PERMIT, ALLOW, and RESTRAIN are double-speak for Calvinists.
They make perfect sense in a NON-deterministic world.
But they make no sense in a world where everything is programmed to infallibly come to pass.
What is interesting about that – is when rhutchin makes that argument – he’s actually inferring that Calvin’s god is not omniscient enough to know what is infallible and what is not infallible.
Therefore that argument – actually works against Calvinism’s omniscience card. :-]
Bottom line Calvinists what determinism and NON-determinism at the same time.
Its like a person who spends a lot of time describing a duck – only to argue its a cow.
When it comes to boasting about sovereignty – Calvinists are 100% determinism.
But the general narrative of scripture is Non-deterministic – and this presents a huge problem for them.
So they must halt back and forth between two opinions.
EX-Calvinist Daniel Gracely – in his book CALVINISM: A CLOSER LOOK calls this “Calvinism’s rocking horse”
Here is his 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.
My favorite analogy from Graceley’s book. This is exactly what I experienced for so many years, and he describes it perfectly. The naive, trusting believer, like myself, does not understand what the Calvinist is doing. He does not even imagine that his trusted teacher would simply rock deceptively back and forth between two completely contradictory truths, never fully embracing one to the logically necessary exclusion of the other. When he finally recognizes this, he is stunned and disillusioned, finally realizing that he must reexamine everything taught if this is the sort of tactic the Calvinist thinker employs.
Doublespeak away, clever Calvinist . . . eventually, the perceptive observer will see the childish rocking horse you are riding.
TSOO
Doublespeak away, clever Calvinist . . . eventually, the perceptive observer will see the childish rocking horse you are riding.
br.d
Yes thanks TSOO – and that would make our sometimes continual round-and-round all worth it!
Calvinists are certainly in a very precarious position mentally – as you’ve noted.
As Christians we are inclined to give other professing Christians the benefit of the doubt and not suspect any form of dishonesty.
New participants here at SOT101 all go through the same phases in dialog with Calvinists.
They start dialog assuming it will lead to some successful and/or logical resolution – when it never does.
Its impossible for dialog to reach a logical conclusion – when one party is in full double-think mode.
So we use the environment to induce Calvinist to bring their double-speak statements out into the light – where they can be seen for what they are – and as you say “perceptive observers” can recognize them.
Jesus – John 3:20-21
Every crooked strategy must evade the light – lest its crookedness be made manifest.
But truth comes into the light without reservation, that it may be manifest, that it is wrought in God.
TS00 writes, “The naive, trusting believer, like myself, does not understand what the Calvinist is doing.”
The Calvinist goes into the Scriptures and seeks to understand what the Scriptures say
TS00
“The naive, trusting believer, like myself, does not understand what the Calvinist is doing.”
rhutchin
The Calvinist goes into the Scriptures and seeks to understand what the Scriptures say
br.d
And Lance Armstrong goes into news-paper articles about him – seeking to understand what they say about him taking performance-enhancing drugs.
More precisely:
1) John Calvin treated the Gnostic/NeoPlatonist writings of Augustine as CANNON.
2) Thus holding them as having the authority of scripture he used them to quote “compared scripture with scripture”
3) The result was N.T. doctrine RE-FORMED into a Gnostic/NeoPlatonist image.
We all know how Augustine inspired John Calvin is. :-]
Many modern Calvinists highly regard Augustine. “Hey if you get TULIP right we will forgive anything!!!”
Augustine is forgiven many things since “it was a difficult, unenlightened time.”
I dont know why anyone even listens to a word he says. He had very questionable positions on:
–Philosophy: being influenced by Stoicism, Platonism and Neoplatonism,
–Sexuality: basically an evil but necessary act
–Communion: literal presence of Christ
–Mary: ever a virgin, “full of grace,” “Mother of God,” venerable
–Eschatology: who knows? One point pre-mill, then a-mill, then post-mill…. whatever works.
–Church: Heavenly or real? Catholic or …uh Catholic. Bishops and priests are successors to the apostles.
–Fall/Sin: Adam and Eve were created mortal before the Fall.
–Man: Couple different ideas about the soul
–Penitence/ Purgatory: Full acceptance.
What’s not to love!?
Plato to Augustine to Calvin to Sproul ….. go team!
Absolutely correct FOH!
Neoplatonism in Augustine’s Letters – from Academia.edu
-quote:
Augustine corresponded by letter to a close friend Nebridius, who praises how Augustine’s letters: “speak of Christ, Plato and Plotinus”.
Author, Stephen MacKenna in his published work “The Influence Of Plotinus Traced In Augustine”, writes: Augustine’s confessions, evidences at least two mystical meditation experiences, which clearly follow the Neoplatonic model. Mystic meditation was a practice emphasized by the NeoPlatonist’s to aid the believer in becoming assimilated into the “one”.
To the NeoPlatonism the “one” is the most divine being – and is said to be “undifferentiated”.
“good” and “evil” within the “one” cannot be divided into two different and distinct elements.
Because everything is “undifferentiated” within the “one”.
Sparks Notes:
“Augustine’s lasting influence lies largely in his success in combining the Neoplatonic worldview with the Christian one.
In Augustine’s hybrid system ……all creation, no matter how nasty or ugly, has its existence only in God.”
The concept of Yin and Yang became popular with the work of the Chinese school of Yinyang which studied philosophy and cosmology in the 3rd century BCE. The principal proponent of the theory was the cosmologist Zou Yan
A very similar concept to the NeoPlatonists “one”.
Manichaeism taught that the cosmos contains an opposition of two principles, good and evil, each equal in relative power and necessity. And thus a dualistic cosmos in which good and evil share equal divine status.
When a dualistic cosmology and a NeoPlatonic view of God, are synchronized with the monotheistic God of scripture, what will appear is an immutable God whose relationship to good and evil are utilitarian.
quoting Sparks Notes, “In Augustine’s hybrid system ……all creation, no matter how nasty or ugly, has its existence only in God.”
If all creation did not have its existence in God, where did it come from?
quoting Sparks Notes, “In Augustine’s hybrid system ……all creation, no matter how nasty or ugly, has its existence only in God.”
rhutchin
If all creation did not have its existence in God, where did it come from?
br.d
Thank you for acknowledging (by the process of elimination) that the SOURCE and ORIGIN of every sin and evil is Calvin’s god.
br.d writes, “Thank you for acknowledging (by the process of elimination) that the SOURCE and ORIGIN of every sin and evil is Calvin’s god.”
If not, where did it have its origin?
br.d writes, “Thank you for acknowledging (by the process of elimination) that the SOURCE and ORIGIN of every sin and evil is Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
If not, where did it have its origin?
br.d
You won’t get any contest from me on this point.
This is well established as a consequence of Theological Determinism – in current philosophical peer reviewed articles.
For example:
br.d
September 4, 2018 at 1:34 pm
The belief system and its foundation – the template and cornerstone upon which the house of Calvinism is built – is the belief system of “Universal Divine Causal Determinism”. A form of pre-determinism which stipulates that all events universally (i.e. without exception) are fated/predestined to occur inevitably and unavoidable by a THEOS who first-conceives and is therefore the source/origin of their existence – at the foundation of the world.
But I seem to remember you objecting to this in a few back-and-forths.
Interesting!
br.d writes, “Thank you for acknowledging (by the process of elimination) that the SOURCE and ORIGIN of every sin and evil is Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin If not, where did it have its origin?
br.d You won’t get any contest from me on this point.
In other words, br.d doesn’t know and can only cite a Calvinist conclusion.
br.d writes, “Thank you for acknowledging (by the process of elimination) that the SOURCE and ORIGIN of every sin and evil is Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin If not, where did it have its origin?
br.d You won’t get any contest from me on this point.
rhutchin
In other words, br.d doesn’t know and can only cite a Calvinist conclusion.
br.d
Thank you again for acknowledgeing that Calvin’s god as the SOURCE and ORIGIN of all sin and evil is the -quote “Calvinist Conclusion”
As for me, I can sight two conclusions.
One provided by Dr. William Lane Craig, and one from Dr. Ravi Zacharias:
Note 1:
On the quote from Dr. Ravi – I have added text (in blocks) which I believe helps to highlight the essence of what he is saying.
Note 2:
The following quotes represent positions which are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to Theological Determinism.
Since Theological Determinism is a completely different world view – the following statements have alignment with it.
William Lane Craig:
I see the origin of evil, in the disorder of the free will of the creatures. God has created creatures with genuine free will. Angels and humans. And these wills, are properly oriented towards God, as the supreme good. When creatures use their free will, to direct them towards other “perceived” goods, rather than toward God as the ultimate good, this is a disorder in the creaturely will, and is the origin of evil. So moral evil is the result of creaturely freedom, and is a disorder in the creaturely will. In this case, evil is not something that is created. What it is, is a privation of the right order which God intended for the creature.
Dr. Ravi Zacharias:
The supreme ethic that God has given to us is the ethic of love. It is the peek of all intellectual and all emotional alignment – this thing we call love – which places value upon the other person. It places worth on them and deems them as something to be protected. But you can never have love, without intrinsically weaving into it the freedom of the will. You cannot have love without the freedom of the will. If you for example, are compelled by some machine [or any external intelligence outside yourself who determines what choices you will make], then you can never love. You can only comply.
[Since your choices were determined for you, by an external intelligence outside yourself, those choices you are determined to make are beyond your power to alter]. And it will never be YOU who are choosing to express that sentiment and the reality of love.
If love is the supreme ethic, and freedom is indispensable to love, and God’s supreme goal for you and for me, is that we will love him with all of our hearts, and love our neighbors as ourselves – for him to violate our freewill [by determining our choices for us], would be to violate that which is a necessary component for love to flourish, and for love to be expressed.
When you’ve got love as the supreme ethic – and the freedom of the will to choose that love, then all of the other contingencies come in.
[So when it comes to our observing evil and asking where it comes from] – why don’t you wait and see – when you stand before God – and then see what His supreme love has wrought out of it.
br.d writes, “The following quotes represent positions which are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to Theological Determinism.”
The quotes from Craig and Zacharias agree with Calvinism. I don’t see a difference. Craig expresses the Calvinist position well – “…evil is not something that is created. What it is, is a privation of the right order which God intended for the creature.” The term, “evil,” is an adjective that is sued to describe certain actions done by people; it is not a “noun,” not a thing that is created.
br.d
Thank you for acknowledging (by the process of elimination) that the SOURCE and ORIGIN of every sin and evil is Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
October 25, 2018 at 5:56 pm
If not, where did it have its origin?
br.d
You won’t get any contest from me on this point – (i.e. that in Calvinism the SOURCE and ORIGIN of sin/evil is Calvin’s god)
rhutchin
October 25, 2018 at 7:54 pm
In other words, br.d doesn’t know and can only cite a Calvinist conclusion.
br.d
Thank you again for acknowledging that Calvin’s god as the SOURCE and ORIGIN of all sin and evil is the -quote “Calvinist Conclusion”
The following quotes [From Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Ravi Zacharias) represent positions which are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
The quotes from Craig and Zacharias agree with Calvinism. I don’t see a difference. Craig expresses the Calvinist position well – “…evil is not something that is created. What it is, is a privation of the right order which God intended for the creature.” The term, “evil,” is an adjective that is sued to describe certain actions done by people; it is not a “noun,” not a thing that is created.
br.d
Of course you don’t – you’ve learned to embrace double-think.
What you are expressing exemplifies wonderfully the way double-think works.
Both Dr. Craig and Dr. Zacharias adamantly reject the “Calvinist Conclusion”
For the SOT101 reader:
Calvinists are locked in a world of double-think, which closes the mind to the following truths
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE:
Determinism and IN-determinism are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
IN-determinism cannot exist within a deterministic world, any more than circle can be a square or [A] = [NOT A]
Calvinism’s most sacred foundation is Theological Determinism.
The general narrative of scripture is IN-deterministic.
So the Calvinist must use double-think in order to resolve the conflict.
This is why Calvinism is so saturated with self-contradictions.
And this is why Calvinists use shifty language to masquerade all of its self-contradictions.
Both Dr. Craig and Dr. Zacharias statements are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to a compatibilistic form of free will.
Since it is the case in Calvinism that Calvin’s god determines every neurological impulse the Calvinist will ever have – creaturely choices are determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – a point where the creature does not exist.
The creature (Dr. Zacharias describes this as NOT freewill) because it simply complies with what has been decreed/programmed.
The Calvinist is ONLY free to robotically think/say/do what he has been programmed via decrees.
This form of free will is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to both Dr. Craig and Dr. Zacharias position on free will.
Thank you rhutchin
You’ve provided another good example of what that double-think looks like. :-]
br.d writes, “What you are expressing exemplifies wonderfully the way double-think works.
Both Dr. Craig and Dr. Zacharias adamantly reject the “Calvinist Conclusion” ”
Not really. It just means that those who reject Calvinism, as a theology, will often agree with Calvinism on individual points of Calvinist theology.
In a discussion with Paul helm, Craig said, “I can affirm everything in the Westminster Confession except for the one clause where they expressly repudiate middle knowledge as the mechanism for reconciling divine sovereignty and free will.” Obviously, Craig’s rejection of Calvinism does not apply to the rejection of all parts of Calvinist theology.
br.d
“What you are expressing exemplifies wonderfully the way double-think works.
Both Dr. Craig and Dr. Zacharias adamantly reject the “Calvinist Conclusion” ”
rhutchin
Not really. …….etc.
br.d
“Not really” for the Calvinist means “TRUE = FALSE”
Again this is how double-think works.
You have already EXPLICITLY acknowledged the “Calvinist Conclusion”
In order to show your argument you’ll have to provide quotes from Dr. Craig and Dr. Zacharias which EXPLICITLY state god is the SOURCE and ORIGIN of all sin and evil.
I made a typo here!
The last sentence in Note 2 should read:
Since Theological Determinism is a completely different world view – the following statements have **NO** alignment with it.
FOH writes, ” So in that non-Calvinist sense (absolutely non-determinist sense!) I am saying that all that man chooses to do was “decreed” by God in that God decreed man’s liberty.”
That also entails that God not override man’s liberty which He could easily do (and has done). To say that God “allows” is to say that God decreed (i.e., decided) not to override man’s decision. So, when did God make these decisions? For God, to make a decision one minute before is no different than making that decision in eternity past.
Then, ” I say that He decreed in stone that man would make free choices. A person could twist this to say that I think all things are decreed…. but certainly not in the sense that a Calvinist would say that. ”
Here, we need to know what you mean by a free choice. If God knows what you will choose to do tomorrow, does that mean that your choice is not “free”? You say, “Traditional: God knew everything ahead of time. Him knowing ahead what will happen does NOT make it happen. Man chooses it, God knows it. ” That is consistent with Calvinism. William Craig makes this distinction – God’s foreknowledge of future events makes those events certain but not necessary. Those events are determined and one determining factor is man’s “free” choice and God’s free choice not to override man’s choice.
Then, ‘So…. you are gonna go ’round and ’round with Calvinists —who pull out the “omniscience” card at will.”
Which the Calvinist can do so long as everyone agrees that God is omniscient. Obviously, the Open Theists figured out that Calvinism was right on omniscience and in order to oppose Calvinism, one had to deny omniscience (or limit it in some manner).
rhutchin
That also entails that God not override man’s liberty which He could easily do (and has done). To say that God “allows” is to say that God decreed (i.e., decided) not to override man’s decision. So, when did God make these decisions? For God, to make a decision one minute before is no different than making that decision in eternity past.
br.d
I understand in the case of this statement “that God not override man’s liberty” and “God allows” are perhaps theoretical within this particular dialog.
However the conclusion given in the last sentence is not theoretical:
That God is timeless – therefore there is no difference in a decision made in eternity past vs any other time.
This conclusion is logically false as it pertains to the creature.
Yes Calvin’s god is timeless – but creatures are not.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) decrees every neurological impulse Adam will ever have.
These decrees will INFALLIBLY come to pass – resulting in Adam having only one outcome available to him – his disobedience.
These divine decisions occur at a point in which Adam does not exist.
Adam cannot possibly play any role in these decisions since he doesn’t even exist.
Secondly:
For a Calvinist – Calvin’s god NOT over-riding Adam’s liberty is an oxymoron.
Since Adam’s every neurological impulse is decided for him before he exists – there is negligible liberty to over-ride.
The only liberty made accessible to Adam is the liberty to think/say/do ONLY what Calvin’s god decrees – nothing more – nothing less.
Every inclination of Adam is DESIGNED to be ONLY what Calvin’s god decrees it to be – including every minute aspect of the sin nature.
The same truth applies to the concept of Calvin’s god “allowing”.
Calvinists – find the logical implications of Theological Determinism distasteful and in conflict with the general narrative of scripture.
The result is – long ago – Calvinism evolved an AS-IF form of thinking.
Where Calvin’s god determines everything in every part AS-IF he doesn’t
Today this is called double-think – and its outward expression is double-speak.
FOH
Then, ‘So…. you are gonna go ’round and ’round with Calvinists —who pull out the “omniscience” card at will.”
rhutchin
Which the Calvinist can do so long as everyone agrees that God is omniscient.
br.d
Per Calvinist testimonies here – it may be more accurate to say Calvin’s god is omniscient and NOT omniscient at the same time.
For example – one Calvinist here has stated that Calvin’s god “makes an active decision to NOT RESTRAIN” certain events from coming to pass.
According to this testimony Calvin’s god is not omniscience enough to know that ALL events come to pass INFALLIBLY.
Here Calvin’s god doesn’t appear to know the difference between infallible and NOT infallible.
Or perhaps he doesn’t remember WHAT he (at the foundation of the world) decreed to infallibly come to pass?
Or perhaps he thinks some events can occur as OPEN – where he does not decree the outcome one way or another?
In this case he’s not omniscient enough to know that would (god forbid!) contradict Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
Another Calvinist here insists that ALTERNATIVES from what Calvin’s god decrees can come to pass
-quote “At the moment for the human”
Here Calvin’s god is not omniscient enough to know that an ALTERNATIVE from what he decrees coming to pass – would in fact NEGATE his decree.
There are other similar examples of Calvinists testimonies here in this regard.
In any case – these self-contradicting testimonies bring into question Calvin’s god’s actual degree of omniscience.
br.d writes, “one Calvinist here has stated that Calvin’s god “makes an active decision to NOT RESTRAIN” certain events from coming to pass.”
So, let’s correct ti – God made and then executes in the course of time.
Then, “Another Calvinist here insists that ALTERNATIVES from what Calvin’s god decrees can come to pass
-quote “At the moment for the human””
This also speaks of the execution of God’s decision.
br.d\
“one Calvinist here has stated that Calvin’s god “makes an active decision to NOT RESTRAIN” certain events from coming to pass.”
rhutchin
So, let’s correct ti – God made and then executes in the course of time.
br.d
Firstly:
OH! So the previous declaration wasn’t correct!
So much for dialog with a Calvinist!
Secondly:
The “so called” correction is so totally ambigous nothing can be clearly derived from it.
Following the thinking model from Calvinist statements so far – perhaps this means Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world decrees X) and the executes NOT X in the course of time
“Another Calvinist here insists that ALTERNATIVES from what Calvin’s god decrees can come to pass
-quote “At the moment for the human””
rhutchin
This also speaks of the execution of God’s decision.
br.d
This will in all likelihood be the same above.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world decrees X) and the executes NOT X in the course of time
Here Calvin’s god appears to believe he can decree X to infallibly come to pass – and -quote “in the course of time” that decree can be NEGATED.
At this point – per Calvinist testimony – it is still the case that Calvin’s god’s omniscience is in question.
Bible reading in 2 Timothy 2
17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
—————-
Ooops. Looks like Hymenaeus and Philetus “departed from the truth.”
What’s more they are “destroying the faith of some.” But the Lord knows who are His!
“Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord….and turns away from wickedness.”
Turn or burn! And…. uh… don’t depart.
2 Timothy 2 – “God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,”
Philippians 1 – “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”
jtleosala
Actually, it is FOH who have already departed from the truth, Why?
1. Salvation for him is conditional
br.d
If in fact Salvation is conditional – the Calvinist has departed from the truth.
2. Self-righteousness for him is confusing: he says it has nothing to do with earning Salvation, but he still insists it as meritorious — this made him a “Pelagian”
br.d
The hypocrite is till pointing the finger.
He does not know if he is ELECT or not – because that is according to the SECRET COUNSEL
So he goes about producing WORKS – to reassure himself.
He HOPES those WORKS will function as TEA-LEAVES in his life-cup which he can read.
His WORKS function as signs that his eternal fate is heaven rather – than the lake of fire.
But even then – he’s only guessing.
jtleosala
3. Faith for him is not a gift from God.
br.d
A school child should be able to recognize this as a strawman argument.
jtleosala
4. Man has the ultimate choice in Salvation, not God.
br.d
Another strawman
jtleosala
5. He is a “universalist” – that all mankind was loved by God and will be saved.
br.d
This one has only one strategy – the pointing of the finger.
When you do away with the pointing of the finger – then when you cry for help the Lord will answer. Isaiah 58:9
jtleosala
6. His doctrine on the Grace of God is defective. For him Grace has a condition that man has to be met.
br.d
Calvinism’s term: “Doctrines of Grace” is a deceptive half-truth.
In reality – they are “Doctrines of Good-Evil”
An honest witness tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But a dishonest witness withholds evidence.
br.d,
Once again you come to the rescue of FOH the Polynesian.
I do not worry too much when someone accuses me of saying that salvation is conditional. I just hear the words of Christ Himself and others:
Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matt 4:17)
I came not to call the righteous but the sinners to repentance. (Mark 2:17)
They went out and preached that men should repent. (Mark 6:12)
… that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations. (Luke 24:47)
Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out … (Acts 3:19)
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matt 12:50)
If a man love me he will keep my words. And my Father will love him and we will come into him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)
You are my friends if you do whatsoever I command you. (John 15:44)
If we walk in the light … the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanses us from all sin. (I John 1:7)
So I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. (John 8:24)
Truly I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death into life. (John 5:24)
…that whosoever believes in him should not perish… (John 3:16)
Truly, I say unto you, He that believes on me has everlasting life. (John 6:47)
Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life. He that believes in me, though he were dead yet shall he live. (John 11:25,26)
But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And that believing you might have life through his name. (John 5:24)
——-
These things are written so that people might believe! Nothing more is needed but the Word of God! Christ is calling everyone to believe!
“Though he were dead….” he can still believe (John 11:26).
I know that Calvinists say people cannot believe, and they are entitled to their opinion (built on their 40-50 main verses). I want to go with the overall message of the Scripture.
“Though he were dead….” “Come unto me all who labor [and are dead in your sins] and I will give you rest.”
Hi FOH,
I totally agree – there are so many subjunctive conditionals throughout scripture.
I think, if Theological Determinism were true – most of the language of scripture would more accurately reflect it – with the predominant use of absolute declaratives – rather than the predominant use of subjunctive conditionals we find in scripture.
That’s one of the reasons Calvinist language is so full of double-speak.
Blessings to you on this happy day!
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. :-]
br.d writes, ” if Theological Determinism were true – most of the language of scripture would more accurately reflect it – with the predominant use of absolute declaratives – rather than the predominant use of subjunctive conditionals we find in scripture.”
br.d does not seem able to deal with absolute declaratives. Here are some examples.
“No one can come to me…” John 6 (twice)
“..apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15)
“…no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12)
“…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3)
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,..” (John 6)
“Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6)
“There is no-one righteous, not even one;” (Romans 3)
“there is no-one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3)
“no one can tame the tongue;” (James 3)
br.d
” if Theological Determinism were true – most of the language of scripture would more accurately reflect it – with the predominant use of absolute declaratives – rather than the predominant use of subjunctive conditionals we find in scripture.”
rhutchin
br.d does not seem able to deal with absolute declaratives. Here are some examples. (9 verses were given as examples)
br.d
rhutchin – you really need to consider taking a course in elementary school logic.
You should consider stopping to think rather than leep-frogging to false conclusions.
There is no LOGICAL correlation between:
“the predominant use of subjunctive conditionals we find in scripture”
and
“does not seem able to deal with absolute declaratives”
I have a suspicion this is your old stand-by – REVERSE ATTRIBUTION.
Person [A] attributing something to someone else – which he is in fact doing.
I always get a kick out of Calvinists pointing the finger – totally oblivious they are pointing 4 fingers back at themselves.
In this case “not able to deal with the predominant use of subjunctive conditionals within scripture” :-]
I always could see that the “No one is righteous” in Rom 3 was far overextended in meaning and coverage of people in much “traditional” teaching.
I am glad that LF puts in the more complete and accurate biblical meaning and adds many verses to show that man IS CAPABLE of SEEKING GOD, and that is GOD’S EXPECTATION OF US.
Wonderful post! – Thank you Daniel!
And welcome to SOT101 :-]
Daniel martin writes, “I always could see that the “No one is righteous” in Rom 3 was far overextended in meaning and coverage of people in much “traditional” teaching.”
Romans 3:, “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE.”
So, we understand Paul to argue that neither Jew nor gentile (thus, no one in the world) is righteous – whether Jew or gentile, the person is lost.
RHUTCHIN. I meant to focus on the overextension the “no one seeks God” part. Many assume it means NO one EVER seeks God. Yet many of the scriptures in the article show that seeking God is Gods expectation, AND many DID seek God in other places in Scripture.
To which I add David:
With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! Ps 119:10
danmart57 writes, “Many assume it means NO one EVER seeks God.”
The assumption is that no unbeliever ever seeks God until prompted to do so by God. Thus, Jesus said, “No one can come to me…” Your citation of the Psalm dealing with David describes the actions of a believer. All believers seek God – contrary to their situation as an unbeliever.
David says: You have said, “Seek my face.” My heart says to you, “Your face, Lord, do I seek.” Ps 27:8
Erratta: Ps 119 was another author, but still one who seeks God.
I always find it interesting how Calvinists seek to figure out ways to get around scripture. :-]
Also, Calvinists need to explain how their interpretation of Romans 3:11 fits with other teachings of scripture about man’s responsibility to seek God, such as: (I will attempt to do so. And you will notice the verses given are either imperatives or are directed towards believers. The problem here is that there is a faulty premise that an imperative equates to ability when there are declarative verses that say otherwise.)
“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,” – Acts 17:26-27 The key here is that “they should” seek after God because it is their duty to do so. This is an imperative, which doesn’t prove ability. It is assumed that sinful man can do it because God commands it.
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” -Isaiah 55:6-7 Again,this is an imperative to the nation of Israel. They know all about God and His commands, yet they don’t seek God. Only believing Jews would seek after God.
“Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who do his just commands; seek righteousness; seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the anger of the Lord.” -Zephaniah 2:3 Again, an imperative (a command). And notice in this verse it is towards the “humble of the land, who do his commands.” In other words, if you have true faith, you will seek God.
“And he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord.” -2 Chronicles 12:14 Notice the cause and effect by the word “for?” When you don’t set your heart to seek God, you will do evil. This isn’t a proof that man can seek the Lord, but a confirmation that when you don’t it is because you are a wicked sinner. Similar language is in John 3:19-20.
“Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O Lord.” –Psalms 83:16 Notice cause and effect here as well. The Lord must shame them so “that they may seek the Lord’s name.” Notice who must do the action first? It is God. Nowhere in this verse does it indicate that man seeks by his “free” will.
“Then Jehoshaphat was afraid and set his face to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.” -2 Chronicles 20:3 Jehoshaphat is a believer. His name literally means “Yahweh Judges.” 1 Kings 22:43 indicates this despite his foolish alliance with Ahab. Believers will seek God because we know Him.
“For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.” –Luke 12:30-31 Again, this is an imperative and it is given by Jesus unto His listeners. They were not to seek after the things that the world sought, but the things of God if they were truly of God.
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” -Romans 2:6-8 These verses should definitely not be used to prove a point because the contrast is between believers and non-believers. Notice it begins that God will judge according to their works. If by patience in well-doing they seek glory, honor, and immortality means a sinner of his own “free” will, then their intent would equate to the works. No, this is speaking of believes while the “but” contrasts the unbelievers. As I stated before, believers will seek after God.
“And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.” –Psalms 9:10 Read the beginning of this verse: To “those who know your name put their trust in you.” These are believers. They will seek God because they know God and has not forsaken them.
“And those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord, the God of their fathers.” –2 Chronicles 11:16 Anyone that sets their hearts to seek God are believers. The assumption here is that they did it of their own “free” will. The verse doesn’t teach that, you must infer it because they did it. Inference is fine unless there are other verses that speak about the nature of man and tell you that they wouldn’t come (which John 6:44 says and actually which Romans 3:11 says.
Needless to say, the Bible certainly treats fallen men as if they are genuinely responsible (response-able) to His appeals and offers of grace and forgiveness. On what basis do Calvinists rest their presumption that, as a consequence of the sin of another, God has decreed that mankind would be born with “Total Inability” to respond willingly to the gospel?
This is a dogma yet to be found explicitly taught in the Bible.
Yes, the Bible treats man responsible to repent and believe because they are lawbreakers (1 John 3:4) and God is lawgiver, judge, and King (Isaiah 33:22). Yet responsibility is not defined as “being able to respond.” In scripture, it is being accountable for something. That is a definition you are creating based on your presupposition of “free” will; this is the same thing you do with Bible texts. This is the reason you are pitting all the verses you referenced against Romans 3:11, trying to basically make it a lie to say that all those under sin actually can seek after God when the verse says “there is none that seeketh after God.” It is ironic that you actually quote Psalm 14:2-3 and skim over the fact that the Lord looked down to see “if there were any that did understand, and seek God,” and the answer is found in verse 3, they’ve all gone aside and no one does good, no not one. Isn’t it also funny that 14:1 begins by saying no one does good, then 14:2 tells us God looked down to see if anyone sought Him, then 14:3 ends with saying they’ve gone aside and no one does good. God equates seeking Him with doing good. Then in 14:4 He clarifies who He is speaking about when He asks rhetorically, “Have all workers of iniquity no knowledge?” Workers of iniquity are sinners. Notice these verses are basically repeated in Psalm 53:1-4. Yet the Apostle Paul takes the truth of these verses in Romans 3:11 and summarizes that no one seeks after God. He would know that this is true based on the context of both Psalm 14 and 53.
The problem here is that any command or imperative to seek, choose, believe, or repent equates to the doctrine of ability. You infer this because your thinking is, “How can God tell someone to do something that they are not able to do?” You appeal to logic (which is fine), but you let your presupposition of “free” will lead your logic. Your logic may be sound, but your premise is faulty. The faulty premise is that man has “free” will to choose God. The Bible doesn’t say that and unfortunately you have redefined the plain meaning of texts based on your presupposition to make your presupposition fit. This is the reason you constantly ask, “On what basis do Calvinists rest their presumption that, as a consequence of the sin of another, God has decreed that mankind would be born with “Total Inability” to respond willingly to the gospel?” Many have presented verses to you, but you cling to your “free” will presupposition that you haven’t proven with declarative verses; therefore your own misinterpretation of the verses make you ignore the context of them. This is the reason you change the context of Romans 9:19-24, because it asks and answers the question. You also must change John 6:37-44 to somehow make man “able” when verse 44 clearly says “No man can come to me.” From John 6:28 to 6:65 the context is believing in Christ; therefore verse 44 is in the context of the inability to believe. You must downgrade the depths of Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, and Ephesians 2:1-3. You downgrade the fact that our nature is bound by sin; in fact we are slaves to sin that only Christ can set us free according to John 8:34-36. And we are willing slaves, not ones fighting our nature. This is the reason our worldly sorrow works death and our godly sorrow works repentance to salvation according to 2 Corinthians 7:10. Sinful mankind can be sorry about their sins for sure, but it isn’t towards God unless God perhaps gives them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (2 Timothy 2:25) because it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance (Romans 2:4). Without God acting first, people are just sinners that hate God the Father, Christ,and Christians in John 15:18-23 with carnal minds hostile to God according to Romans 8:7.
No offense, but it takes a lot of work to find verses to fit your narrative instead of letting verses speak for themselves. Yet you do this frequently and often. Your whole YouTube videos attack reformed theology and even well-known pastors that affirm this theology. It borders on obsessive, but it also an undercover way to demonize other believers because “free” will seems to be above all things as it pertains to salvation in your mind. I certainly can’t read your heart, but I can read your words, listen to your videos, and observe your demeanor. This is bad theology because you seem to have a problem reconciling the sovereignty of God with the will of man; therefore you change or reinterpret God’s attributes and you elevate finite man to a station the Bible never gives.
Thank you Eric and Welcome
Yes – I agree with you – SHOULD strongly implies CAN – in any LOGICAL sense.
And yes- in order to make scriptures APPEAR to say what the Theological Determinist wants it to say requires twisting language into an unnatural pretzel.
One of the questions you ask “How can God tell someone to do something that they are not able to do?” has been observed here in many different ways. Calvin’s god commands Adam to not eat the fruit knowing he is not going to PERMIT Adam to do otherwise – on pain of falsifying or negating the divine DECREE that he do so.
Additionally in Theological Determinism – where Calvin’s god DECREES Adam eat the fruit – he is DECREEING an event into existence. Which means any alternative event is NOT DECREED into existence. And that which does not exist is not available to man. Therefore the event of Adam NOT eating the fruit is never made available to Adam.
These and many more LOGICAL conundrums come with Theological Determinism. Conundrums which Calvinists just don’t allow themselves to acknowledge. Most of the time – the response to these conundrums is typically some kind of DOUBLE-THINK.
But obviously the individual who is totally invested – is quite naturally going to see what they want to see and blind themselves to the rest. And that is what we observe.
Blessings
brdmod writes, “And yes- in order to make scriptures APPEAR to say what the Theological Determinist wants it to say requires twisting language into an unnatural pretzel.”
If brdmod intents to tie Calvinism to Theological Determinist on this point, then he is misrepresenting Calvinism unless he has specific examples of Calvinism “…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel” to demonstrate the truth of what he claims. Anyone else can chime in and help brdmod out.
rhutchin
If brdmod intents to tie Calvinism to Theological Determinist on this point, then he is misrepresenting Calvinism unless he has specific examples of Calvinism “…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel” to demonstrate the truth of what he claims. Anyone else can chime in and help brdmod out.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin
The best way to acquire an example would be to wait for a Calvinist here at SOT101 to post one or two.
I’ve found this is the most efficient way to accomplish getting examples.
In such case the Calvinist will have a hard time trying to refute his own statements.
And when he tries to back-peddle or use language tricks to get around them – it becomes all that much more obvious.
So we simply wait for the Calvinists to provide the examples
We then point them out and it makes for a win-win situation! :-]
rhutchin: “If brdmod intents to tie Calvinism to Theological Determinist on this point, then he is misrepresenting Calvinism unless he has specific examples of Calvinism “…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel” to demonstrate the truth of what he claims. Anyone else can chime in and help brdmod out.”
br.d: “The best way to acquire an example would be to wait for a Calvinist here at SOT101 to post one or two.”
br.d has no examples. He purposely misrepresented Calvinism. Play by your rules and don’t do it again.
rhutchin – if someone enunciates something concerning the Calvinist system – such as a logical consequence etc – and then Calvinists themselves provide examples of that very thing – then that is not a misrepresentation now is it?
Now after the example is provided – you are free to claim no example was provided – which you have done in times past.
But when SOT101 readers clearly recognize the Calvinist did in fact exemplify what was enunciated – then they are also intelligent enough to recognize that that example affirmed the representation.
That process has in fact occurred here a number of times – with you claiming no example was given and others rolling their eyes in response.
So for me – the process of highlighting when a Calvinist provides an example has been a very effective process – since its the Calvinist himself who is providing the example – its not based on anybody else but the Calvinist himself.
br.d writes, ‘But when SOT101 readers clearly recognize the Calvinist did in fact exemplify what was enunciated – then they are also intelligent enough to recognize that that example affirmed the representation.”
br.d accused the Calvinists of, ““…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel.” He has yet to provide an example of this. Thus, he is misrepresenting the Calvinists on this by making up something that is not true and now appears to be doing it on purpose.
br.d says, “if someone enunciates something concerning the Calvinist system – such as a logical consequence etc…” What is this” No one has done this. br.d has no example, and no one has provided an example. All of br.d’s double-talk proves nothing.
If br.d, or anyone else has an example of Calvinists ““…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel,” let’s see it.
rhutchin
If br.d, or anyone else has an example of Calvinists ““…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel,” let’s see it.
br.d
As I said rhutchin – Calvinist have provided examples – and then simply claim no example was given.
Personally I chalk up all of those denials as simply a strategy.
And when other SOT101 readers recognize what an individual refuses to acknowledge – it becomes pretty clear what strategy it is.
This parallels SOT101 readers recognizing the strategy behind the “you can’t explain it” routine
Its just a strategy of denial designed to wear people out – and then claim victory.
Children do it all the time.
rhutchinL “If br.d, or anyone else has an example of Calvinists ““…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel,” let’s see it.”
br.d: “As I said rhutchin – Calvinist have provided examples – and then simply claim no example was given.”
Yet, br.d is unable to provide just one of those examples. Perhaps, br.d is just fluff and double-talk.
rhutchin
If br.d, or anyone else has an example of Calvinists ““…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel,” let’s see it.”
br.d: “As I said rhutchin – Calvinist have provided examples – and then simply claim no example was given.”
rhutchin
Yet, br.d is unable to provide just one of those examples. Perhaps, br.d is just fluff and double-talk.
br.d
Since we know that the Calvinist will provide the example – and then claim no example was provided – it doesn’t take much to know what the Calvinist will claim when we go back to those examples now does it.
I wasn’t born yesterday :-]
rhutchin: “If br.d, or anyone else has an example of Calvinists ““…twisting language into an unnatural pretzel,” let’s see it.””
br.d: “As I said rhutchin – Calvinist have provided examples – and then simply claim no example was given.”
rhutchin: “Yet, br.d is unable to provide just one of those examples. Perhaps, br.d is just fluff and double-talk.”
br.d: “Since we know that the Calvinist will provide the example – and then claim no example was provided – it doesn’t take much to know what the Calvinist will claim when we go back to those examples now does it.”
Still no example. Just fluff and double-talk.
BRDMOD, I appreciate your response, but I noticed it addressed it through the lens of “Calvin’s god” rather than the number of scriptures I presented. I find this to be a serious problem when discussing doctrine. You seem to insinuate that I am making scriptures appear to fit something you object to rather than addressing if the scripture actually says it. How can I twist Isaiah 46:9-11 or Proverbs 21:1 or even Acts 2:23 (speaking of God’s plan for sinful man to crucify Christ) and not come to the conclusion that God determines things based on the content, context, and grammar of the verses? The objection to the doctrines is easy to put in a “Calvin’s god” box when Calvin didn’t write the scriptures but is God-breathed and sufficient for all believes (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While you think something is double-think, it is actually in the Word of God. To say the one presenting the doctrines is twisting it or adhering to Calvin diverts from the fact that the scriptures say what they say.
I tried my best to address every verse that was presented in its context and even explain that logic, while useful, can be misguided if you begin with a faulty premise that is not in scripture. This is the reason, I believe, it is easier to give a drive-by of my comments than take the time to show how the interpretation is faulty. In other words, I take the time to explain the verses and you reply by basically saying, “There are logical conundrums in determinism based on Calvin’s god so the typical response is double-think, so we can just reject the response because you didn’t answer the logical conundrums to our satisfaction.” Whenever I see any Christian make theological assertions, I try to be a good Berean to search the scriptures (Acts 17:11), therefore I looked up every verse used that tried to basically refute Romans 3:11. After searching it, I offered a response based on the context of the verses. If I am incorrect, then a response showing the correct interpretation is more prudent than just saying, “You have the wrong view, therefore your interpretation is wrong.” I understand you may not have the time to respond in such a thorough manner, but the thorough post needed a thorough response, so I sincerely believe the rebuttal of my response should be a bit more detailed (and with scripture). Thanks for reading.
Eric
BRDMOD, I appreciate your response, but I noticed it addressed it through the lens of “Calvin’s god” rather than the number of scriptures I presented.
br.d
Well – if they are supposed to be INTERPRETED through the lens of Calvinism – then my response is correct.
Eric
I find this to be a serious problem when discussing doctrine.
br.d
Is doctrine based on IRRATIONAL thinking?
IRRATIONAL thinking will always result in an IRRATIONAL interpretation of any data.
Whether that data is scripture or not.
We have people here who deliberate endlessly over scriptures with no resolution whatsoever.
The bottom line for me is that language is easy to manipulate because there are no fixed rules which every participant is willing to comply with. And that’s where we get so many different interpretations for the same exact texts.
But any participant who evades compliance with the rules of LOGIC reveals a weakness – i.e. IRRATIONAL thinking.
So no sense in me wasting endless hours deliberating over texts – when a small amount of RATIONAL reasoning is readily observable.
Eric
You seem to insinuate that I am making scriptures appear to fit something you object to rather than addressing if the scripture actually says it. How can I twist Isaiah 46:9-11 or Proverbs 21:1 or even Acts 2:23 (speaking of God’s plan for sinful man to crucify Christ) and not come to the conclusion that God determines things based on the content, context, and grammar of the verses? The objection to the doctrines is easy to put in a “Calvin’s god” box when Calvin didn’t write the scriptures but is God-breathed and sufficient for all believes (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
br.d
See answer above
Scripture is God-breathed – but IRRATIONAL thinking resulting in IRRATIONAL INTERPRETATIONS of any data is not.
So my first step is to ascertain if one’s thinking is IRRATIONAL
And I know what is bound to follow when that is the case.
Eric
While you think something is double-think, it is actually in the Word of God. To say the one presenting the doctrines is twisting it or adhering to Calvin diverts from the fact that the scriptures say what they say.
br.d
To claim something exists and does not exist at the same time is DOUBLE-THINK
A yes – I’m very familiar with the Calvinist argument that that is scriptural
But the only way they can maintain that is with MAGICAL thinking and thought-blocking techniques which the use to keep themselves from acknowledging when IRRATIONAL is IRRATIONAL
Eric
I tried my best to address every verse that was presented in its context and even explain that logic, while useful, can be misguided if you begin with a faulty premise that is not in scripture. This is the reason, I believe, it is easier to give a drive-by of my comments than take the time to show how the interpretation is faulty. In other words, I take the time to explain the verses and you reply by basically saying, “There are logical conundrums in determinism based on Calvin’s god so the typical response is double-think, so we can just reject the response because you didn’t answer the logical conundrums to our satisfaction.” Whenever I see any Christian make theological assertions, I try to be a good Berean to search the scriptures (Acts 17:11), therefore I looked up every verse used that tried to basically refute Romans 3:11. After searching it, I offered a response based on the context of the verses. If I am incorrect, then a response showing the correct interpretation is more prudent than just saying, “You have the wrong view, therefore your interpretation is wrong.” I understand you may not have the time to respond in such a thorough manner, but the thorough post needed a thorough response, so I sincerely believe the rebuttal of my response should be a bit more detailed (and with scripture). Thanks for reading.
br.d
Thanks for taking the time to explain that.
And I believe I’ve explained my process.
I let the scholars deliberate over the exegesis of scripture – because they are required to follow academic rules – in order to maintain their reputation in scholarship.
N.T. Wright – and James White – for example – have an interesting back-&-forth on the Youtube “unbelievable” broadcast.
And even then – one can see there are differences of opinion on what rule one emphasis’s and what rule one de-emphasises.
What verse over-rules another verse
What presupposition rules over another presupposition.
And because there is such a degree of subjectivity in the process – they both go back to their perspective corners anyway.
But LOGIC is different because the rules are rigid.
A fallacy if fallacy and magical thinking becomes easier to spot.
Over time – that process has proven itself to be much more fruitful for me.
Thanks for your kind words.
Eric A Smith quotes Admin to say, “Also, Calvinists need to explain how their interpretation of Romans 3:11 fits with other teachings of scripture about man’s responsibility to seek God,…On what basis do Calvinists rest their presumption that, as a consequence of the sin of another, God has decreed that mankind would be born with “Total Inability” to respond willingly to the gospel? This is a dogma yet to be found explicitly taught in the Bible.”
Under Calvinism, people are not born with faith. Faith comes later by the preaching of the word. Without faith a person is Totally Depraved and unable to seek God or obey God. Thus Paul in Romans, “…the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Once a person receives faith – receives assurance and conviction from the word – that person naturally believes.
Leighton, I have been listening to your podcasts and have learned much about Calvinism that I didn’t before, firming up my positions against Calvinism. Thanks for all your hard work. I have a slightly different take on Romans 3:9-20. I have always thought that Paul’s main point in Romans 3 was to prove that the Jews are sinners, just as the Gentiles are: “We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.” (v. 9). So his quote of Psalm 14 is to support that point, not that righteousness comes through faith in God’s promise and provision, a point which he develops later. The context of Psalm 14 is that the Psalmist is contrasting the fool who says there is no God with the righteous, as you also point out. But the statement “no one seeks God” in Psalm 14 refers to the fact that at that time in Jewish history, all had turned away from God and had become corrupt and stopped seeking God. In other words the nation had once enjoyed a time when there was some degree of godliness, but now all had “turned away… and become worthless.” The Jews had fallen under gross sin and depravity, proving Paul’s point that that the Jews are under the power of sin as well as the Gentiles. Verses 19-20 further confirm his point. The rest of your post I fully agree with.
Welcome Scott. Leighton rarely frequents the comments section on these pages. He has others monitoring them for him. But I will pass this expression of appreciation on to him. Thank you for your observations.
br.d
Hello Scott – welcome!
And thank you for your kind and sincere remarks!.
.
I believe Dr. Flowers is still on Face Book and interacts with people there.
So if you are a FB user you may find him there.
Also you may be interested in posting a question to him on the side-chat of one of his Youtube videos..
.
Blessings!
br.d
There are basically two theological approaches for interpreting this passage:
(1) Calvinistic Approach: Apart from a Divine irresistible work of regeneration (by which God changes a chosen individual’s nature and desires), mankind cannot willingly seek to know, understand, or follow God.
(2) Non-Calvinistic (Traditionalist) Approach: Apart from God’s gracious initiative in bringing His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel appeal, no one can merit salvation or consistently seek to obey God in a way that will attain his own righteousness.
What if both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists are wrong regarding “No one seeks God”?
What if understanding this sentence lies in understanding the meaning of the word “seeks.”
What if there are two Hebrew words for “seek”
In Psalm 105 verse 4 two Hebrew words for seek are found in the same verse:
“Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore.”
The first seek is the Hebrew word Darash and the second seek is the Hebrew word Bakash. What is the difference, and is this the only place something like this occurs?
The prophet Jeremiah also uses both of these two Hebrew words in the same verse. In Chapter 29 verse 13 of his book he writes:
“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”
So while you think you are seeking the Lord, God says you are not seeking Him, because your understanding of “seek” is different from His.
Are you seeking Him with all your heart as your first priority; like you would seek your lost child? Or is your search for God more academic than desperate?
Do you trust in the Lord with all you heart or do you lean on your own understanding?
When you lack wisdom or understanding do you ask God in faith or do you Google the question for advise from others?