by Leighton Flowers
We all intuitively know that it is morally wrong to condemn people due to factors beyond their control.
For example, this is why racism is so detestable. A person has no control over their skin color and thus it would be completely unjust to condemn or mistreat people on the basis of this factor. I think we can all agree that is a reasonable conclusion that can be intuitively affirmed.
But, what if that factor isn’t external but internal? For instance, what if someone is born with a mental disorder which prevented them from carrying out normal human functions but outwardly they looked normal? I think we all intuitively know that it would also be completely immoral to condemn the mentally disabled for their inability to function normally. Why? Because it is a “factor beyond the agent’s control.” Are we all in agreement so far?
But what if the factor isn’t external, like one’s skin color, or mental, like a inborn ailment? What if the factor is spiritual? Does this principle change? If so, on what basis?
If the reason one is condemned is for “factors beyond the agent’s control” (ie born spiritually dead, guilty of sins committed by ancestors, not savingly loved by their maker, not granted faith, etc) on what basis can we call their condemnation just?
How would condemning the reprobate within the Calvinistic worldview be in any significant way different than condemning all people born with blue eyes, for instance? Does making the condition a physical feature in any way change the principle regarding the condemnation of someone due to “factors beyond their control?”
Here are some passages to consider:
“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.” -John 12:48
“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” -2 Thessalonians 2:10b
“Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” -John 3:14-18
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” -2 Corinthians 5:17-21
According to the verses above it seems those who are condemned are condemned for refusing to believe and accept the truth God makes clearly known. And those who are saved are reconciled by replying in faith to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
The bad news is that we all would be condemned if not for His Provision of grace but it is our responsibility to confess our sin and trust in Christ so as to be saved, something that is not outside our control, which is what makes it such good news for the whole world.
To my Calvinistic friends: Before objecting please give a rational explanation as to how the reprobate (non-elect) within your world view are not ultimately being condemned due to factors beyond their control, or admit that is true and give a rational explanation as to how and why that is any more just than condemning people due to race or mental disabilities.
Also, before committing the “you too fallacy,” answer the charge brought against your position first and then we can discuss any charge you’d like to raise about our position.
Thank you.
Leighton,
Our Calvinist friends will say something like, “We know it doesn’t make sense, but that’s what the Bible says so we believe it!”
But that’s the beauty of it!!!
The Bible only says that if you INSIST on a certain interpretation of a few certain verses. Otherwise, the Bible does not seem to be saying that at all!
So yeah, chuck that idea that God is prejudice, immoral, or a “respecter of persons” and see in the Bible that He loves all men (not just “all kinds of men”) and that Christ gave His life that anyone can call on Him.
FOH says: “Our Calvinist friends will say something like, “We know it doesn’t make sense, but that’s what the Bible says so we believe it!””
That’s how cults get you too! “You can’t understand it, so just trust us to tell you what to think!
I agree with you, FOH, that it only teaches Calvinism if you approach it with Calvinist glasses on, allowing your preconceived ideas of a few verses to taint the way you read the rest of the Bible and to override what you read in the rest of the Bible. I think that Christianity is a reasonable, rational faith that can be supported and validated through study. Not a contradictory, irrational “just accept what we tell you” kind of theology like Calvinism is.
Just sharing a video that I think is excellent: “Greg Boyd – Calvinism Refuted in 10 Minutes”:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=greg+boyd+refuting+calvinism&&view=detail&mid=1F8C46E081AE20C78E051F8C46E081AE20C78E05&&FORM=VRDGAR
So clear and concise!
Heather:
Two things on your last post:
1. In my overseas country of service as a missionary for 30+ years, I noticed the young (able to understand English) would flock to Piper’s sites and also read about “The Prince of Preachers” Spurgeon. The fact that “big names” like that can live with the very illogical dilemmas of Calvinism counts a lot to these young YRRs.
2 “I think that Christianity is a reasonable, rational faith that can be supported and validated through study. Not a contradictory, irrational “just accept what we tell you” kind of theology like Calvinism is.” I agree and I am always humored and amazed when I see a Reformed seminary offering a class (or even a degree!) in “Apologetics”.
Really? Defending the faith? To whom? Dead men? Debating with unbelievers? To what end? That you might “persuade” (Pauls’ words) or “convince” (Paul’s words) or “reason with” (Paul’s words) them?
I chuckle because to me….. saying “Paul’s words” (showing that he reasoned with people to convince them) automatically shows that he was NOT a Calvinist. But to those with the glasses on…. and the crazed look… they say…… “See even ‘Calvinist Paul’ talks about convincing men—- since…” —-here it comes…..wait for it….. “Since we dont know who the elect are we try to convince them all!”
How ridiculous “trying to persuade” a “dead man.” A “dead man” that God has purposely not chosen! That is a fool’s errand if I ever heard of one!
Just the mere fact that Paul so often and differently describes that he is “trying to persuade” shows that he knows they are not dead in the way Calvinists say!
FOH writes, “Just the mere fact that Paul so often and differently describes that he is “trying to persuade” shows that he knows they are not dead in the way Calvinists say!”
If you had not deleted it from your Bible, you would know that Paul saw his role as that of planting and watering while it was God who gave the increase. When Paul says he persuaded, he meant that he planted and watered. It was God who saved – this through the gift of faith and His Spirit by which a person was born again..
Heather,
When a Christian athlete does some great feat she may say something like “God allowed me to do the….empowered me…gave me the strength…. I give all the glory to God,” but she is not saying she did nothing! (lots of days in the weight room and on the field!!). But it is a way of downplaying herself and giving glory to God.
When the walls of Jericho fell it was partly because the people marched around the city as they were told.
When the angel of death passed over during Passover, He only passed over the houses where people had applied the blood. No faith…no application of the blood…. God will not pass over.
Did the people give Him the glory for that and for parting the Red Sea and the Jordan? Yes! Did they have to start walking into the raging waters first? Yes!
Now, some Calvinists want to whisk away all of Paul’s teaching on “being all things to all men to win some” with a simple Calvin-lens interpretation of one verse taken out of context. Let’s see that context:
“1 Cor 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. [dont stop there!!!] 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.[dont stop there!!] 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. ”
Obviously Paul does not mean that he and Apollos “are not anything” since he goes on to say they will receive wages for their labor and that “THEY ARE GOD’S FELLOW WORKERS.”
But in Paul’s effort to show that we should give the glory to God (but we still participate: see the walls, rivers, angels of death above) he downplays his part and gives glory to God.
Now, Calvinists will systematically rip this out of context (what’s new) and then put on their Calvin-lens to say that “God gives the growth” mean precisely that God takes “dead men” and makes them “born again” so He can give them faith, so they can be “born again” again.
Nah. That’s just coming to the Bible with answers, then looking for verses to prove it.
heather writes, ‘Just sharing a video that I think is excellent: “Greg Boyd – Calvinism Refuted in 10 Minutes”: ”
Boyd is an advocate of “free will”.. Regarding this, Calvinists make two arguments.
1. “those who are in the flesh [the unsaved] cannot please God.” )Romans 8)
2. “without faith it is impossible to please God,” (Hebrews 11)
Therefore, those who are in the flesh [the unsaved] are without faith.
1. “faith comes by hearing, ” (Romans 10)
2. :hearing comes by the word of God.” (Romans 10)
Therefore faith comes by the word of God.
Calvinists conclude that no one can have faith until they hear the word of God (primarily, the gospel).
Do you agree? If so, what is “free will” without faith? If not, can you give us your understanding of the Calvinist arguments above.
FOH: “Really? Defending the faith? To whom? Dead men? Debating with unbelievers? To what end? That you might “persuade” (Pauls’ words) or “convince” (Paul’s words) or “reason with” (Paul’s words) them?”
Heather: Isn’t that amazing! That they will think that God alone has any say in or influence over which “dead men” will come to life and in causing those chosen dead men to come to life, but then they will go out there and try to “persuade” men and reason with them to accept their theology.
It’s like “You are all dead men! And like a dead body that just lays there – all dead – you can’t do anything to think about God or want God unless God has prechosen you and causes you to do it. But now let me try to reason with you and persuade you to believe in Him.”
Mind-boggling! And yet they can’t see the problem with it. They’re just “Well, God said we are supposed to evangelize, even if we don’t know what effect it can have on someone since He’s already predestined who gets saved and since He alone causes it to happen. But we obey His command to evangelize simply because He told us to.”
(Umm … if you have to “obey” God’s command to evangelize, doesn’t that mean you can disobey His command!?! And if you have to choose between obeying and disobeying, aren’t you right back to free-will!?!)
FOH: “See even ‘Calvinist Paul’ talks about convincing men—- since…” —-here it comes…..wait for it….. “Since we dont know who the elect are we try to convince them all!”
Heather: And so I guess that God NEEDS the help of the Calvinist to get those men saved, huh!?! So much for God being the ONLY factor involved in man’s salvation. Apparently, it’s “God’s election alone” plus “Calvinist evangelism.”
And as far as “dead men” go, Jesus called the Prodigal Son “dead” also. And yet that dead man “came to his senses” and reasoned that it would be better to go back home to his father than stay in the hopeless condition he was in. So much for “dead” people being unable to think or reason or even want to come to the Father without God’s direct causation.
It’s truly unbelievable sometimes, the level of delusional and denial that is necessary in Calvinism!
heather writes, “I guess that God NEEDS the help of the Calvinist to get those men saved,”
Paul wrote, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” Do you mind that God uses people to plant and water even when He ends up giving the increase?
Earlier, Paul said, ‘we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.” Do you agree that the spirit enables a person to know salvation – one of the things freely given by God?
Heather,
Many people know the story of the Reformed Seminary professor who takes his students on the first day of class to the local cemetery.
He tells them…. start preaching!
He then tells them….your audience is dead ….and it is like preaching in cemetery until God makes them alive.
Then he takes them back to campus where most of them will have Apolgetics 501 and Evangelism 501 (or they may have Advanced Evangelistic Techniques 550).
Yep…. stunning how they do that.
If their Reformed Deterministic theology was correct, Paul is the most arrogant man alive to say ….
“I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win AS MANY as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, TO WIN the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), SO AS TO WIN those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), SO AS TO WIN those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, TO WIN the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by ALL POSSIBLE MEANS I MIGHT save SOME. ” 1 Cor 9.
Paul sure talks about his efforts, his winning, “as many” as possible. What Paul? The number is not set?
Paul ….the greatest non-Calvinist of all time!
What I find as a RED-FLAG – is the Calvinist when talking to people *AS-IF* they might be “elect” – seem to never tell them that Calvin’s god – (as the divine potter who makes the vast majority of his vessels – vessels of wrath) – DESIGNS the vast majority of mankind for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
Why is it the Calvinist’s don’t tell people the WHOLE TRUTH?
Because SECRETLY they know – that telling the WHOLE TRUTH would cause those people to reject their message.
And every time they did that – they would have to claim there weren’t any “elect” people in each group.
And then after being rejected 1000 times – it would eventually obvious their false-premise was an ILLUSION.
The Calvinist knows if he tells the WHOLE TRUTH – Calvinism is sure to go the way of the dinosaur.
And that tells us EVERYTHING we need to know. :-]
Bullseye! If Calvinists are so sure of their theology, why don’t they put all of their cards on the table, rather than hemming and hawing and hiding ‘the scary stuff’ (as per R.C. Sproul)?
Rhutchin: “Calvinists conclude that no one can have faith until they hear the word of God (primarily, the gospel)”
Heather: So people hear the Gospel, understand the Gospel, respond to the Gospel, and then they have faith and are saved? So then Calvinists DON’T believe that we get faith only if we’ve been pre-chosen, and only AFTER the Holy Spirit regenerates us (the elect only!) to make us want God, seek God, and understand/respond to the Gospel!?! So we get faith by hearing the Gospel and responding to the Gospel, without being elected or regenerated first!?!
Wow, I guess Calvinism and non-Calvinism has more in common than I thought!
Heather
Wow, I guess Calvinism and non-Calvinism has more in common than I thought!
br.d
WONDERFUL!
We all recognize how Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK works!
If the Calvinist weren’t double-minded – would he have no mind at all? :-]
Calvinism – TULIPS
Unconditional Election has it’s corollary
Unconditional Rejection (in eternity past before either had done good or bad)
Irresistible Grace has it’s corollary
Irresistible Reprobation
That is all you need to know to see what kind of a God the calvi-god is. The moral character of their deity. Nothing like the God of the Bible.
Great correlations GraceAdict!
I’ve never seen anyone connect those dots so well – but those are excellent!
And that again reminds me – that Augustine synchronized the “Moral Dualism” of Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism into his doctrine and Calvin blindly carried it forward.
Calvin’s god is not just “good” he is “Good-Evil”. Where Good and Evil are Co-equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-Complimentary. However it is the “good” side of the dualism the Calvinist will most always enunciate and the “Evil” side of the dualism – he will try to hide.
But your correlations show the “good-evil” dualism excellently!
heather writes, “So people hear the Gospel, understand the Gospel, respond to the Gospel, and then they have faith and are saved?”
No. People hear the Gospel, receive faith (faith comes by hearing), and thereby understand the Gospel leading to a positive response to the Gospel whereupon the Holy Spirit enters in and they are saved (In Christ you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance).
Then, “So we get faith by hearing the Gospel and responding to the Gospel,…’
We get faith by hearing the Gospel and then exercise that faith to respond to the Gospel.
Then, “without being elected or regenerated first!?!’
Per John 3, a person must be born again (regenerated) in order to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. When a person is enabled to see and enter the kingdom of God, he then is able to hear the gospel, the good news about the kingdom.
Not everyone who physically hears the gospel preached responds to that gospel in faith. Why not? Because faith is a gift of God and God chooses (or elects) those to whom He gives faith.
Then, ‘I guess Calvinism and non-Calvinism has more in common than I thought!”
Maybe, not.
Rhutchin: “Paul wrote, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (“God made it grow,” according to the NIV).””
Heather: So are you saying then that God is simply the helper, that He helps grow what Paul plants? Because without the seed that Paul planted, there would be nothing to grow.
Rhutchin: “Paul saw his role as that of planting and watering while it was God who gave the increase.”
So I guess Calvinism would say that PAUL is the reason that any of them had faith to begin with! That MAN gives people faith, and God just helps it grow.
So not only does God NEED Calvinist evangelist to save people, but now He NEEDS man to plant first so that He has something to help grow!
Calvinism: A very man-centered theology!
Yes Heather,
You demonstrate the Calvinistic tendency to take any half-verse and make it say something that fits their pre-conceived notions.
One could easy do that (like you do for this example) and make Paul the hero. He watered, he will get wages, he is a co worker of God. But that just shows the difference in how we come to Scripture. Non-Calvinists tend to look at the overall message of God…tenor of the Bible….. Calvinist focus on the 40 verses that defend their idea.
Calvinists say, despite all of the thousands of verses to the contrary, the message of the Bible is that God —for His own good pleasure— created the VAST majority of mankind to condemn them to eternal torture….never intending to love them in the least.
Their message is that all the evil in the world is His idea and His plan.
Their message is that God commands us to love all even our enemy, but He does not.
The distinction between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is ever evident on these threads. Whereas we nons seek to grapple with the most significant truths, like ‘What is God like?’ and ‘What is love?’ the Calvinist can only snatch prooftexts out of contest and defend his system.
Most realize that serious questioners are looking at the same bible, reading the same words, so it is disingenuous to suggest people simply don’t know what the scriptures say.
Rather, we are looking at those very same prooftexts and, like all of the early church fathers before Augustine, rejecting the determinist interpretations that do so much harm to the character and purposes of God.
People who read or listen to countless explanations of Romans 9 or other prooftexts Calvies use, and seriously wrestle with all possible interpretations. I have probably read or heard at least 30 slightly different takes, and am not sure I agree 100% with any, but the more input I evaluate, the more I feel equipped to be fair and teachable.
Most Calvinists I know just throw out ‘What about Romans 9?’, then close their ears to any alternative explanations you might offer. As if people have not been wrestling with these ideas for centuries.
I am not ignorant of scripture or Calvinists’ take on it. I have studied it deeply over the last 20 years. That is not to say that makes me right, just basically aware of the general alternatives to Calvinism’s interpretations. I m not so sure the average Calvinist can honestly say the same.
Even though I grew up in non-Calvinist churches, I was not really equipped to grapple with the issue if determinism. Most of us have to do our own homework. I believe this is why many are drawn to these pages.
Heather writes, “So are you saying then that God is simply the helper, that He helps grow what Paul plants? Because without the seed that Paul planted, there would be nothing to grow.”
Paul as a believer is commanded, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.’ The gospel is the seed. Paul says, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” and “if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.”
So, God saves us by the gospel, compels us to preach the gospel, and then brings the growth.
Then, “So not only does God NEED Calvinist evangelist to save people, but now He NEEDS man to plant first so that He has something to help grow! ”
That seems to be God’s plan – to use His elect to bring His elect to salvation.
And any of the regular commenters here should be able to see that I am just messing with Rhutchin with these last couple comments. That I’m playing “Let’s pretend I’m Rhutchin for a day,” giving him a taste of his own nonsensical, twist-your-words medicine. Of course, I’m sure you all knew that, but I figured I’d say it for the sake of those who might take me seriously and think I’m off my rocker.
FOH, Amen to your post starting with “When a Christian athlete …” (All your posts actually, but specifically this one right now.) Great way to understand what Paul is really saying and what his intentions are. And the best part is … it’s so logical and reasonable to understand it this way, it makes sense with the rest of the Bible, and it still keeps God’s character in tact.
BR.D.: “Because SECRETLY they know – that telling the WHOLE TRUTH would cause those people to reject their message.”
Heather: This is ironic because, in Calvinism, nothing anybody says or does should be able to cause someone to reject the truth. If someone has been predestined to be elected, then they will be saved, because of what Calvi-god does. If predestined to be a reprobate, then they will be a reprobate. Man cannot thwart what Calvi-god has fore-ordained.
And so a Calvinist should never be afraid of pouring on the whole truth, every disgusting last morsel. Because it has no bearing on someone’s predetermined destiny anyway. Nothing does. So when a Calvinist tries to be careful or strategic about what they say then they are essentially denying their view of election, that God alone has predetermined everyone’s destiny, that it’s absolutely sure to happen because God predetermined it, that God controls the whole thing, and that nothing we do can change it or affect it.
Calvinists say God is fully sovereign (according to Calvinism’s definition of it) on the one hand, but they live like they have some sort of influence over what happens on the other hand. They give themselves too much credit while talking like they give themselves none!
TS00: “Rather, we are looking at those very same prooftexts and, like all of the early church fathers before Augustine, rejecting the determinist interpretations that do so much harm to the character and purposes of God.”
Heather: What amazes me is how resistant the Calvinist is to realize what their theology does to the character of God. And how reluctant they are to reconsider their theology when others point out what it does to the character of God. Instead of seriously questioning their understanding of Scripture, they will cling with everything they’ve got to their preconceived ideas, using “mystery” and “two wills” and “two loves” etc., to gloss over all the wretched ways their view destroys God’s character and attributes. And the worst part is that they’ll think that they are doing Him a great service by doing this, by defending their view so dogmatically. They’ll think they are more humble because of it. In my mind, that can only be satanic. A brilliant satanic strategy!
Great post Heather
Calvinism can’t stand up to robust scrutiny that is why they use straw men so often or the weakest argument available for them to critique. A popular tactic of Calvinists is to use the 100 lb sledge hammer to squash real examination of the facts. This 100 lb. sledge is: “who are you oh man to question God ?” This is not meant to give an answer but instead to halt the question and squash the questioner. Now it is not God that is being questioned by the Non-Calvinist but instead THEIR false doctrine ABOUT God.
HOWEVER, they try and make it sound like you are arrogantly questioning God, but in reality you are questioning what THEY have blasphemeously SAID ABOUT God. They try and silence the questioner who would dare to point out the ugly truth about their belief system.
I find they desperately need to hide the ugly truth even from themselves, they dare not look deeply at the issues, so smash the objection quickly without examination. After they have used their 100 lb sledge hammer to squash any uncomfortable question and questioner they then quickly cover the remains with the “Mystery” Blanket saying; “we are too small to comprehend the infinite or if we could understand God we would BE God, we must simply accept Calvinism by blind faith and this will glorify God.” This allows them to blindly go on their merry way feeling proud about their humility in accepting contradictory ideas.
Here is a brief look at some of the UGLY of Calvinism:
Unconditional Election has it’s corollary
Unconditional Rejection…. (in eternity past before either had done good or bad and even before evil existed they were Unconditionally Rejected )
Irresistible Grace has it’s corollary
Irresistible Reprobation….. with no hope of ever being loved at any time by their maker.
Limited Atonement for the few or Scarce Atonement for the few… also has it’s corollary
Limited or Scarce Love, Mercy and Grace in favor of Copious, Grandiose and Unequaled Wrath, Damnation and Destruction of those who were Irresistibly Created FOR Reprobation and Unconditionally Chosen FOR Rejection in eternity past!!!
Rom 1:23 (They) changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man,
“Calvinist’s behold your god”….a god made in the image of corruptible man.
In Calvinism when one is being conformed to the image of his god what does that look like?
“When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.” Arthur Pink Calvinist
Who are you oh Non-Calvinist to question the image we have fashioned with our own hands and after our own likeness?
Amen, Graceadict!
I especially like “This 100 lb. sledge is: “who are you oh man to question God ?” This is not meant to give an answer but instead to halt the question and squash the questioner.” and “This allows them to blindly go on their merry way feeling proud about their humility in accepting contradictory ideas.” (so true!) and “Who are you oh Non-Calvinist to question the image we have fashioned with our own hands and after our own likeness?” (This is what they really mean!)
And about the “Who are you to question God?” thing, some commenter here once pointed out the irony of Calvinist’s using that line. Because if Calvinism is true, then God Himself ordained that the person talks back to Him. How can one “talk back” to God when God controls every thought that person has? It’s God talking back to God through man.
So when they challenge us about why we are talking back to God, we should say “I can’t control it. God ordained that I question Him and disagree with Calvinism!” And see what they say. That would be fun.
Heather
So when they challenge us about why we are talking back to God, we should say “I can’t control it. God ordained that I question Him and disagree with Calvinism!” And see what they say. That would be fun.
br.d
Yes that is fun!
A few Calvinists coming in and out here have tried to insist that Calvin’s god never decreed I argue against Calvinism.
They tried to attribute it to me alone *AS-IF* “Mere” permission exists within their system.
When I brought up the fact that that for a Calvinist was DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – they left and didn’t bother to come back.
Others like JTL – may try to make some statement framed in such a way as to make it APPEAR as not DOUBLE-SPEAK.
But that never works either – under scrutiny.
I think most Calvinists use mental blocking techniques – and simply refuse to acknowledge contradictions and fallacies.
That’s essentially what RH does.
heather writes, ‘Because if Calvinism is true, then God Himself ordained that the person talks back to Him. How can one “talk back” to God when God controls every thought that person has?”
God does not compel a person to say one thing or another (except in the case of His prophets). A person reacts to God and his external environment with the experience, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom he accumulates in his life, acting in concert with his sin nature,.
Then, ‘So when they challenge us about why we are talking back to God, we should say “I can’t control it. God ordained that I question Him and disagree with Calvinism!””
Just as Paul described, “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?”
rhutchin
God does not compel a person to say one thing or another (except in the case of His prophets)
br.d
Here the term “compel” is totally ambigous.
Even in Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god doesn’t “compel” (if one means FORCE) prophests to do anything.
In general the term “compel” in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) is misleading.
Because INFERS a degree of creaturely autonomy that doesn’t exist.
Calvin’s god does not “compel” creatures.
He RENDERS-CERTAIN every nuerologocal impulse that will ever appear in the creature’s brain.
Creatures simply FUNCTION robotically and have NO SAY in the determiniation of anything.
br.d writes, “Here the term “compel” is totally ambigous.”
Then use force or coerce. I don’y see a difference among the three in context.
Then, ‘Even in Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god doesn’t “compel” (if one means FORCE) prophests to do anything.”
Peter described it this way, “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” To be moved by the Holy Spirit is the same as being compelled, forced, or coerced. God gets His way.
Then, “In general the term “compel” in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) is misleading. Because INFERS a degree of creaturely autonomy that doesn’t exist. ”
LOL!!! More like creaturely subordination.
Then, “Calvin’s god does not “compel” creatures.
He RENDERS-CERTAIN every nuerologocal impulse that will ever appear in the creature’s brain.”
That’s because God make the brain and understands it perfectly. God thereby knows the neurological impulses that are generated when a person puts his hand on a hot stove, has a gun pointed at his head, receives divorce papers, etc. Nothing new under the sun for God. In similar situations different people will react differently based on the unique knowledge, experience, and understanding each has.
Then, ‘Creatures simply FUNCTION robotically and have NO SAY in the determiniation of anything.”
Another bold claim without an argument to back it up.
br.d
Here the term “compel” is totally ambiguous.”
rhutchin
Then use force or coerce. I don’y see a difference among the three in context.
br.d
Even in Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god doesn’t “compel” (if one means FORCE) prophets to do anything.”
In general the term “compel” in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) is misleading.
Because it INFERS a degree of creaturely autonomy that doesn’t exist in Calvinism
rhutchin
LOL!!! More like creaturely subordination.
br.d
In the case of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) we have TOTAL and ABSOLUTE subordination.
Such that no degree of creaturely autonomy exists.
Therefore Calvin’s god does not “compel” creatures.
He RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever appear in the creature’s brain.”
rhutchin
That’s because God make the brain and understands it perfectly. ….etc.
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits man to have any autonomous neurological impulse! :-]
And if Calvin’s god isn’t smart enough to know the effects of the neurological impulses he CAUSES – then he ought not be CAUSING them. :-]
In Calvinism creatures simply FUNCTION robotically and have NO SAY in the determination of anything.”
rhutchin
Another bold claim without an argument to back it up.
br.d
Excellent!
Another example of *AS-IF* thinking!
It came to pass you wrote “Another bold claim…”
In that instance – as in every instance – Calvin’s god determined for you – what you would think and what you would write.
Then Calvin’s god simply determined you not call that FUNCTIONALITY robotic.
And that’s exactly what you did! :-]
How does the Calvi-god claim to be distant from evil while still causing evil? Here is a parable that may help see how the Calvinist mind works regarding secondary causes and primary causes.
A Drone flies high in the sky makes a direct flight to a destination and then locks onto it’s target a nursery full of Jewish children, they are simply hated because of being born Jewish, factors beyond their control. The first pass over the building the drone unleashes 2 missiles that vaporize the building with all the Jewish children and their teachers in it. A few happened to be in the playground when the missiles were fired so the drone makes a 2nd pass and this time guns down the remaining survivors.
This is an outrage the international community quickly bands together and locates the drone. They capture the drone and bring the drone in, everyone condemns the drone for this terrible evil that was committed by the drone. A study group is set up to find out how this evil could have happened. They examine the drone and find that the computer onboard sends all the commands to the rudders and flaps to turn this way and that..they find that there is a gps system that is responsible for navigation and this too is integrated into the onboard computer.
They also find the trigger on board that is engaged to release the missiles. This of course was also controlled by the onboard computer. With these findings the international court condemns the Drone, having examined the evidence they conclude the Drone truly is responsible for every movement that it made they can track it all back to the onboard computer. The onboard computer was in fact controlling all of the drones actions. The conclusion is the drone must be destroyed.
Meanwhile the inventor, architect, manufacturer and the remote pilot of the drone is watching these proceedings from afar and is relieved that the court was not able to discern that yes the onboard computer was truly controlling the plane but it was he who was sending the messages into the onboard computer via radio signals.
Even in our twisted earthly legal system here on earth we would not condemn the drone for it’s actions we would condemn the one sending those radio signals into the onboard computer via a remote device. This is a parable of how Calvinism says God uses secondary causes for evil while God still remains separate from it…this is how God can decree evil and control every synapse yet he is remote from the evil that happened.
Isn’t the Calvi-god so holy and separate from evil…in him is no darkness at all…all evil is in the drone.
Great analogy GraceAdict!
Of course the Calvinist is going to argue that Calvin’s god does not use radio signals to control people.
And therefore the analogy fails
But the fact is Calvin’s god doesn’t need to use radio signals – all of the programming is built into the design at time of manufacture.
Calvin’s god determines every microsecond of the drone’s activity from start to finish by immutable decrees.
Then of course the Calvinist will argue that humans are not mechanical entities
And therefore the analogy fails
But no one is suggesting humans are robots ONTOLOGICALLY.
Calvin’s god designs humans as biological entities yes.
But robots FUNCTION as non-autonomous entities.
Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR/ORIGINATOR of every neurological impulse – making humans FUNCTION robotically as non-autonomous entities.
For instance, the Calvinist, to be consistent, would have to affirm that every birth defect, disease and neurological disorder arose from God’s determinative decrees. He intended them to come into being, and did whatever Calvinists want to imagine he does to make it happen.
I, on the other hand, can allege that God does not desire birth defects, disease or neurological disorders, but we, as humans have voluntarily misused the resources provided by God for good into harmful substances. Man has concocted and/or introduced thousands upon thousands of chemicals into the air, water, food, medicine and material goods with which we come in contact daily. I would allege that it is the harmful effects of these chemicals, mostly untested, that have wreaked havoc upon our atmosphere, biosphere, etc and brought malfunction, disease, poor health and death to many.
Most importantly, I would allege that this quite apart from, and contrary to, God’s desire and plan for the resources he provided. Many of the things God intended for our good, we have misused for our and others’ harm. We consume too much of the wrong kinds of foodlike substances (made possible by chemical companies and their ilk) and end up with obesity, diabetes and countless other disorders. We abuse alcohol and other addictive substances, and end up with more disease and destruction. We pump toxic residues from our modern ‘progress’ into the air, water and ground, and only when social reformers protest are any steps taken to protect people from their harmful effects.
Consistent Calvinists would have to lay all of the abuse and destruction mankind has produced at the feet of God. If he ordained whatsoever comes to pass in eternity past, before any creature was made, then it is he alone who can take credit – and blame – for whatever indeed comes to pass. Most of the time, however, Calvinists weave gossamer webs of make believe, non-free freedom to choose that br.d. so often describes in order to pretend that man is to blame for doing what God decreed them to irresistibly do. Worse, they accuse God of doing the same, holding man accountable for deeds that they could not but do, and threatening to punish them for not doing what they cannot do.
This is a heinous system, and should be carefully examined and rejected by all who love truth, goodness and all of the genuine characteristics that make up the Creator God.
And since all of that in their system is based on their embrace of Theological Determinism – (along with the system’s Gnostic elements) we can see why they spend so much time trying to masquerade their system to APPEAR as IN-deterministic as possible.
I would agree. I would say my greatest desire is to expose that mask for what it is, so that others will not, as I was, be seduced into a system they is not all that it seems. I beat myself up all of the time, because I had actually studied Calvinism years before, and had no excuse for not understanding it. Yet, my pastor was able to convince me that his sort of Calvinism was different; just what I had been looking for! I was persuaded that, under compatibilism, one could have their cake and eat it too – just like rhutchin.
What I was not aware of was the deception that underlay this, the shifting of meaning and non-disclosure of redefined terms, and that while left unsaid, the truly heinous parts of the system remained underneath the surface and could not be denied. I do not want others to be deceived in this manner, only to have their world rocked when they realize what Calvinism really is, underneath all of the double-talk, hemming and hawing. By that time one has usually built a community that is difficult to leave, so they are desperate to believe, as told, that they must just not understand Calvinism properly. Of course, you’ve never heard that one before. 😉
I appreciate all you do to tear off the mask.
You have a powerful testimony TS00
And I thank the Lord exceedingly – that we’re all working together to tear off that mask :-]
TS00 writes, “I had actually studied Calvinism years before, and had no excuse for not understanding it.”
No excuse is right.
Then, “Yet, my pastor was able to convince me…”
You are to be convinced by the Scriptures. Remember the Bereans, “Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea… These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” Knda reveals your immaturity at that time.
I was no doubt less mature then than now. I am less mature today than I will be tomorrow, for I intend to never stop growing.
But in reality, what was most in play was how a clever, sly, charismatic narcissist can manipulate and deceive people into ignoring their own doubts and trusting him implicitly, all without them even knowing what was happening. Did I think I was being a Berean? Certainly, and thanks to the handy dandy new Calvinist lenses my pastor assured me would help me see so much more clearly, I began to see things differently than I had ever seen them. And when my logic, and former understanding would urge me to question, I was able to use all of the tools my pastor provided to fend them off:
“When I speak from the pulpit, I speak for God.”
“Who are you to question God, O man?”
“These are not contradictions, they only seem to be. God’s logic is far above man’s logic.”
“God is far above man, and much which we cannot understand must be seen as part of his mystery.”
“Compatibilism is necessary to make sense of scripture, as it both teaches God’s sovereignty over whatsoever comes to pass (Divine determinism) and man’s accountability (Free Will). We don’t have to understand it, we simply have to accept it.”
Etc.
There ya have it, who am I to question God? So even if a few tiny doubts remain, I can just chalk ’em up to my puny, insignificant understanding. I need only be as humble as my pastor, and acknowledge that he was always right, as he was backed by councils and creeds, and, and Spurgeon, for heaven’s sake!
Only deliberate dishonesty can turn
“God does not desire . . . but we, as humans have voluntarily [rebelled] . . .”
“. . . quite apart from, and contrary to, God’s desire and plan . . .”
“. . . lay all of the abuse and destruction mankind has produced at the feet of God.”
and
“This is a heinous system, and should be carefully examined and rejected by all who love truth,..”
into an affirmation of Calvinism. smh
TS00 writes, “For instance, the Calvinist, to be consistent, would have to affirm that every birth defect, disease and neurological disorder arose from God’s determinative decrees.”
Yes, that decree to Adam, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Every birth defect, disease and neurological disorder arose from Adam’s sin. Had Adam not sinned, there would be no birth defect, disease and neurological disorder. Such is the effect of sin on mankind.
Then, “I, on the other hand, can allege that God does not desire birth defects, disease or neurological disorders, but we, as humans have voluntarily misused the resources provided by God for good into harmful substances.”
A good Calvinist conclusion. I guess you did not reject everything you learned while under Calvinist teachers.
Then, “Most importantly, I would allege that this quite apart from, and contrary to, God’s desire and plan for the resources he provided. Many of the things God intended for our good, we have misused for our and others’ harm.”
Another good Calvinist conclusion.
Then, “Consistent Calvinists would have to lay all of the abuse and destruction mankind has produced at the feet of God.”
In one sense, because God was present when all the abuse and destruction occurred and did not exercise His omnipotent power to direct a different outcome. From the Proverbs, “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, And He ponders all his paths,” and “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps…There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the LORD’S counsel–that will stand…A man’s steps are of the LORD;”
Then, “This is a heinous system, and should be carefully examined and rejected by all who love truth,..”
Fine. Make that argument from the Scriptures and don;t ignore the hard Scriptures.
br.d writes, “In the case of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) we have TOTAL and ABSOLUTE subordination.
Such that no degree of creaturely autonomy exists.”
How could the creature be autonomous with respect to God given that God created him? As the pagan king said in Daniel, “I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?”’
Then, “Therefore Calvin’s god does not “compel” creatures. He RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever appear in the creature’s brain.”
The corrupted nature of man dictates neurological impulses and guarantees the certainly of those impulses that God decreed.
Then, “And if Calvin’s god isn’t smart enough to know the effects of the neurological impulses he CAUSES – then he ought not be CAUSING them.”
God understands perfectly the corruption of the human nature and the neurological impulses generated by that nature. God caused this when He said to Adam, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,” and then enforced that decree when Adam ate the fruit. Form that point, a good human nature that would have generated neurological impulses for good was corrupted and could only generate neurological impulses for evil.
Then, ‘Excellent! Another example of *AS-IF* thinking!”
LOL!! No argument here to back up his claim that – “Creatures simply FUNCTION robotically and have NO SAY in the determiniation of anything.”
br.d
In the case of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) we have TOTAL and ABSOLUTE subordination.
Such that no degree of creaturely autonomy exists.”
rhutchin
How could the creature be autonomous with respect to God given that God created him?
br.d
Since you’re always crafting statements designed to INFER various degrees of creaturely autonomy – you’ve answered your own question.
Calvin’s god does not “compel” creatures. He RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever appear in the creature’s brain.”
rhutchin
The corrupted nature of man dictates neurological impulses and guarantees the certainly of those impulses that God decreed.
br.d
I noticed here you uses the word “dictates” rather than “determines”.
The answer which your always trying to escape is simple – and I’ve had to say it way to many times.
Calvin’s god is the SOLE DETERMINER of *ALL* – leaving nothing left over for creatures to determine.
You’re simply showing everyone William Lane Craig is correct – as a determinist you need *AS-IF* thinking.
rhutchin
God understands perfectly the corruption of the human nature and the neurological impulses generated by that nature.
br.d
Calvin’s god understands it because he DECREED every micro-aspect of it.
I notice here you use the term “generated” rather than “determined”.
Again with the escape mechanism – unable to follow Calvinism’s CAUSE-EFFECT chain of sin and evil – back to its ORIGIN.
rhutchin
God caused this when He said to Adam, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;…etc
br.d
There you go again with that *AS-IF* thinking.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits Adam to be or do anything.
rhutchin
LOL!! No argument here to back up his claim that – “Creatures simply FUNCTION robotically and have NO SAY in the determiniation of anything.”
br.d
The argument was there – Calvin’s god didn’t PERMIT you to acknowledge it.
This time you wrote “LOL!!…..etc”
So this time Calvin’s god determined that *FOR YOU*.
I would guess Calvin’s god is having fun determining your thoughts FOR YOU.
I’ve played with robots myself – so I know how much fun it can be!. :-]
rhutchin: “How could the creature be autonomous with respect to God given that God created him?”
br.d: “Since you’re always crafting statements designed to INFER various degrees of creaturely autonomy – you’ve answered your own question.”
LOL!!! It was a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious to all but br.d – The creature cannot be autonomous with respect to God.
rhutchin
How could the creature be autonomous with respect to God given that God created him?”
br.d
Since you’re always crafting statements designed to INFER various degrees of creaturely autonomy – you’ve answered your own question.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! It was a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious to all but br.d – The creature cannot be autonomous with respect to God.
br.d
Whether the question was rhetorical or not – and whether or not Calvinist claim to reject creaturely autonomy – doesn’t detract from what the answer exposes. They need it!
And I thank you for consistently providing examples of that. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Whether the question was rhetorical or not –”
br.d still doesn’t want to admit that a finite man is subordinate to an infinite God and thus, cannot be autonomous with respect to God. What can we expect from someone whose Bible seems to be the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Poor br.d. He never accepted what Paul said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Poor Calvinists have a love-hate relationship with their own doctrine.
You’ve blow your own cover on this I’m afraid – with all of those statements strategically designed to INFER various degrees of creaturely autonomy. Of course we are talking about FUNCTIONAL autonomy.
br.d writes, “…with all of those statements strategically designed to INFER various degrees of creaturely autonomy. Of course we are talking about FUNCTIONAL autonomy.”
By creaturely/FUNCTIONAL autonomy, you must mean autonomous with respect to other people. Calvinist see no problem with people being autonomous with respect to other people. However, man cannot be autonomous with respect to God – this because, only God is sovereign.
br.d
With all of your statements strategically designed to INFER various degrees of creaturely autonomy. Of course we are talking about FUNCTIONAL autonomy.”
rhutchin
By creaturely/FUNCTIONAL autonomy, you must mean autonomous with respect to other people.
br.d
Nope.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as creaturely autonomy (including FUNCTIONAL autonomy) from Calvin’s god.
rhutchin
Calvinist see no problem with people being autonomous with respect to other people. However, man cannot be autonomous with respect to God – this because, only God is sovereign.
br.d
I really couldn’t care less what Calvinists muse about autonomous with respect to other people.
That’s nothing but a red herring
But let the discerning observer watch – and the Calvinist is guaranteed to craft statements designed to INFER various degrees of creaturely autonomy.
Its part of their love-hate relationship with their doctrine. They NEED some things the doctrine robs them of.
Most consistently: Creaturely autonomy, “mere” permission, and Foreknowledge via observation. They NEED those things.
br.d writes:
“Its part of their love-hate relationship with their doctrine. They NEED some things the doctrine robs them of.
Most consistently: Creaturely autonomy, “mere” permission, and Foreknowledge via observation. They NEED those things.”
Of course they do – scripture is filled with them; most people would reject Calvinism outright if they saw its true colors.
TS00
Of course they do – scripture is filled with them; most people would reject Calvinism outright if they saw its true colors.
br.d
Its interesting TS00 – I think that Calvinists not only deceive others with the DOUBLE-SPEAK – but they themselves fully embrace it – and that’s why they can’t discern it as DOUBLE-SPEAK.
I agree. Most Calvinists in the pew just don’t know any better. And most don’t appreciate anyone messing with their comfort zone or asking painful questions. They have their system, the Sunday potluck is good and they have no desire to pour over theological or historical tomes to better understand where their system came from or what it actually requires one to accept as true about God. They simply quote the prooftexts and scripts they have been given, as if sent from heaven.
Agreed…TS00… most people who embrace the system only know what was advertised. They haven’t actually opened the box and looked inside to see what they actually bought…they recite the advertising jingles or tag lines which are very misleading.
REPROBATION is another one of those things they often conflate, They conflate it with DAMNATION
Here are some quotes from Calvinists… Notice the difference between Reprobation and Damnation…as I find many knowledgeable Calvinists try to disguise their systematic by starting off talking about Reprobation but then subtly change the subject and start talking about their doctrine of Damnation instead. They purposefully do this to blur the lines and confuse the issues and present a softer appearance.
I think all Christians agree with “damnation” but Calvinists have also invented “ Their Unique doctrine of Reprobation” way beyond what the Bible teaches.
First What is damnation? “Damnation is the righteous condemnation and judgment of God upon the sinner who has not placed his faith in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.” That would be a pretty standard understanding of damnation in Christian circles.
Now what is “Calvinism’s Reprobation”? Notice below how in Calvinism Reprobation is way beyond Damnation and precedes it.
Calvinist Author Matthew J. Hart
“Let it be clear: I am not going to deal with the question of the permissibility or justice of the decrees of damnation…I am instead defending here the righteousness of God’s decree of reprobation, that is, HIS Intentionally CAUSING MANY TO MERIT a decree of damnation, which is a different affair altogether.”
Thank-you Matthew for clarifying that in Calvinism “reprobation is a different affair altogether” from Damnation.
M. Hart’s definition of reprobation is that God is:
“intentionally causing many to merit a decree of damnation”, and he highlights how different that is from damnation by saying, “which is a different affair altogether.”
Has Matthew Hart gone rogue? Maybe he is not representing Calvinism? Well let’s look at another pretty good Calvinist, John Calvin himself:
“WE cannot assign any reason for HIS bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for His reprobating others but His Will.” Bk. 3Chap 22 para 11
Notice how reprobation is not because of Sin, it actually precedes sin, logically and chronologically.
At the very bottom Calvin says Reprobation starts and ends with “we have NO REASON for HIS reprobating others but His will”
Damnation has a reason, SIN… Reprobation comes before SIN and Causes the creature to ONLY embrace sin SO THAT God might “rightly damn the creature”. Take careful note of this order: Sin, Damnation and Judgement ONLY come AFTER the decree and decision of REPROBATION… “neither can we have any reason for His reprobating others but His will” This is Calvinism at is foundation.
CALVINISTS KNOW something about God:
“We know with absolute certainty that the God of sovereign election and reprobation does not desire and long for the salvation of all men.” Calvinist professor Hanko
Calvinist Vincent Cheung …You are not a Christian, because you are not chosen. God has destined and created some people for salvation, and destined and created all others for damnation. This is the doctrine of predestination, or the doctrine of election and reprobation…. Just as a lump of clay does not divide itself and make itself into vessels for various purposes, no man chooses what he is to be…. A reprobate is stupid and sinful, and remains stupid and sinful, because God makes him so… no one can challenge God’s decision to make a person into a reprobate, into a vessel of dishonor and of wrath.”
In eternity past God simply decided on His own that he wanted Most people in Hell forever so God invented Reprobation, which is: on purpose, create most humans ONLY FOR Hell…no other option will ever be given to them…never genuinely love them…never provide a way of salvation, why? Because Reprobation doesn’t WANT salvation for them, never did and never will, that is also why Limited Atonement exists Jesus did NOT die for the Reprobate. Remember: Sin, Damnation and Judgment ONLY come after the irresistible decree of REPROBATION.
Calvinists will often try and make you think Reprobation is because people have sinned… that is NOT the case Reprobation precedes the creature sinning, it precedes damnation and it precedes the judgment. All of these flow out of REPROBATION not the cause of REPROBATION.
Satan wants people in Hell…God wants the vast majority of people in Hell
Satan works for the destruction of people… God irresistibly works for the destruction of the majority of people.
Satan does not love people ….God does not love MOST people
Calvinism’s teachings have conflated God with Satan…this dishonors and profanes the Holy name of God. It does NOT glorify God.
John Calvin:
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends. We say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was His pleasure to doom to destruction.” (3:21:5-6)
GraceAdict writes, “Calvinists will often try and make you think Reprobation is because people have sinned… that is NOT the case Reprobation precedes the creature sinning, it precedes damnation and it precedes the judgment. All of these flow out of REPROBATION not the cause of REPROBATION.”
Under Calvinism, reprobation describes those who have no faith – the Totally Depraved. People are born reprobate and then sin. At the judgment, the reprobate are denied entry into heaven and incur damnation.
GraceAdict
Calvinists will often try and make you think Reprobation is because people have sinned… that is NOT the case Reprobation precedes the creature sinning, it precedes damnation and it precedes the judgment. All of these flow out of REPROBATION not the cause of REPROBATION.”
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, reprobation describes those who have no faith – the Totally Depraved. People are born reprobate and then sin. At the judgment, the reprobate are denied entry into heaven and incur damnation.
br.d
Notice how this Calvinist response is really nothing more than a SEMANTIC argument – because GraceAdict’s statement is TRUE.
Calvinists are experts at presenting HALF-TRUTH statements.
Under Calvinism the MANY are DESIGNED for reprobation.
John Calvin:
-quote
Before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God (Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.203)
Rhutchin did not contradict anything GA said; he just tried to make it sound justifiable – with no success.
Totally agree!
If rhutchin finds a statement that is TRUTH-TELLING about Calvinism but doesn’t present a positive SPIN – he frequently responds with a statement designed to APPEAR as a correction. But which is actually nothing more than the Calvinists way of putting a good SPIN on it.
Calvinism’s strong suit is manipulating language.
As an author of false advertisement material a Calvinist could make a fortune! :-]
I loved this one:
The Sunday potluck is good – and they simply quote the prooftexts and scripts they have been given, as if sent from heaven.
Yup!
That pretty much sums it up! :-]
Indeed, most do.
GraceAdict quotes Pink, ““When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.” Arthur Pink Calvinist”
As Paul explained, “As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” In context, Jacob was a child of promise (elect), thus loved, and Esau was not a child of promise (reprobate) thus unloved.
RH writes: “As Paul explained, “As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” In context, Jacob was a child of promise (elect), thus loved, and Esau was not a child of promise (reprobate) thus unloved.”
GA: Here is what the scriptures say: Rom 9:12 she was told, “The older will SERVE the younger.”
Rom 9:13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
You force (reprobate) into those verses but they actually say Esau was chosen to SEVER Jacob his younger brother. (I have never seen in scripture that serving your brother is a sign of Reprobation) Nothing about reprobation are in these verse.
You also already know how the word “hate” is used in scripture when it is used in a context of choosing one over another. It does not mean Damnation but to choose instead of the other…in the case of Jacob, to choose to be in the lineage of the Messiah instead of Esau who “should have been in line” because he was the first born male. God chose Jacob counter expectation and custom, thus the word hate is used…see below… hate does not mean damn but to choose over another.
Luk 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Great point GraceAdict!
Eisegesis is the process of forcing an external concept onto a specific verse which that verse does not convey.
As we can clearly see from Calvinist posts here – Calvinism’s primary strong suit is SHAPE-SHIFTING language.
Every serious Calvinist makes SHAPE-SHIFTING language his primary discipline and supremely focused skill.
And that fact serves as a RED-FLAG that something is wrong with it.
GraceAdict writes, “GA: Here is what the scriptures say: Rom 9:12 she was told, “The older will SERVE the younger.”
Rom 9:13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” ”
Leave it to GA to ignore context. Here is the context for Romans 9.
Paul begins, “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,…” His concern is for the salvation of the Israelites in light of God’s promises to them. He then says, “it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.”
To explain what he means by “children of promise,” Paul uses the examples of Isaac and Jacob and contrast them with Ismael and Esau. Thus, not everyone who is an Israelite is a “child of promise.” – “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.”
That is the context for Paul’s statement that “The older shall serve the younger.” It is the “children of the flesh” who serve the “children of promise.” Jacob is a child of promise, thus loved, and Esau is a child of flesh,” thus hated.
Paul explains this further in Galatians 4, “he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar– for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children– but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.”
Calvinism: “And so she went on, taking first one side and then the other, and making quite a conversation of it altogether… Oh dear, what nonsense I’m talking!” (Alice in Wonderland)
Rhutchin says: “TS00 writes, “I had actually studied Calvinism years before, and had no excuse for not understanding it.””
And he responds: “No excuse is right.”
In context, TS00 clearly meant that they had studied Calvinism before, so there was no excuse for not understanding how wrong it was, for letting oneself get sucked into it.
So yes, rhutchin, you are right: There’s no good excuse for getting sucked into it, for failing to see how wrong it is!
I agree with you 100%!
It is true to say that nothing is up to the agent to believe. In order for one to believe anything at all to be real and true he must be convinced. We must be convinced that whatever factual findings in a thing result in a realization that can not be disputed rationally and from whatever perspective it can be viewed. Faith does not require nearly a foundational grounding as this. But, in order for one to be honest with himself and prove what he sees is real and true; in order for him and his right mind to believe, nothing short of these principals will do. A man of his word. a man of pure honesty with himself and his own must know this to be what is right and righteous. Whatever else is merely faith.
Moreover, it would be immoral for even God to hold it against a man that has not been convinced. To label such a thing as a test beyond reproach, this is no game. One cannot participate in what does not know he’s playing. Therefore, it is afterall immoral that God has not left it in doubt. The fault that one has not been convinced does not fall to the agent. But is the responsibility of the one for which seeks believability. This ought be clear and obvious. If there be dispute of this article, it can only be for the same reasons you are willing to believe without just prudence. What is the condemnation for one that with closed eyes, he lept?
Welcome FBTAC! A name would help! You certainly had free will to keep us from knowing more of your identity beyond your written opinion that included no Scripture to support your confidently made premises. I will first note one premise that really needs Scriptural support and more clarification! – You said – “… it is afterall immoral that God has not left it in doubt.” Has not left what in doubt, the revealing of which by God is immoral? I’m guessing you don’t mean God did something immoral by being convincing!
Second, God indeed has left many things open for a free choice between the acceptance of faith and the rejection of doubt. There are many stated revelation truths that cannot be proven empiracally and must be taken by faith. No – you were wrong to say – “it would be immoal for even God to hold it against a man that has not been convinced”. The old adage “if the student hasn’t learned, the teacher hasn’t taught” is false. God places the responsibility for seeking knowledge onto the individual. (Prov 4:5-7)
The knowledge is available, and God does irresistibly convince people of many things as being true, but He has left the decision of trust to be based on faith, which is always short on knowledge, since we are not omniscient. They will must decide freely that what is sufficiently presented as truth is worth committing to as true without having all the evidence. As Jesus put it, there must even be a desire to do God’s will before one can be convinced the teaching of Jesus was from God (John 7:17). That desire cannot be forced upon an individual. They must begin to seek with faith when they hear God’s call!
The warning is given, “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” Heb 3:7-8
This warning passage in Hebrews makes no sense if Calvinism is applied to it. The Calvinist “elect” cannot harden once they hear, and the warning to the so-called elect would be deceitful for they will never be lost. The Calvinist “reprobate” cannot hear and the warning to the so-called reprobate would again be deceitful for it suggests there is hope for them if they repent, which they cannot do.
Yes, there is also a warning of judicial hardening for rejecting to believe His voice, but that comes after a freewill rejection to receive the love of the truth – 2Th 2:9-12 NKJV – The coming of the [lawless one] is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, 👉because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.👈
And – Pro 29:1 NKJV – He who is often rebuked, [and] hardens [his] neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.
No-one is born reprobate. All are given a call to seek that they can understand and respond positively to. There is no excuse.
Brian,
You haver heretofore and forthwith demonstrated your ability to interact eruditely.
Alas, I did not even understand FABTAC, and mistook him for a realtor with that name!
br.d
Good one FOH! 😀
Hello TRRLRR and welcome :-]
TRRLRR:
In order for one to believe anything at all to be real and true he must be convinced. We must be convinced that whatever factual findings in a thing result in a realization that can not be disputed rationally and from whatever perspective it can be viewed.
br.d
This option is not granted to the human mind in Calvinism (as the article points out) for the following reasons.
1) In Calvinism – whatsoever comes to pass – (including perceptions within the human brain) is determined by infallible decrees – established at the foundation of the world – before any man is created.
2) Accordingly – Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – has to made decisions about whatsoever will come to pass – at every instance in time – (including whatsoever perception will come to pass within the human brain) at every instance in time.
3) The choice Calvin’s god makes – logically entails a SELECTION and a consequent REJECTION
The process of SELECTING that specific perception which will infallibly come to pass within the human brain at every instance in time – is by necessity – the process of REJECTING all ALTERNATIVE perceptions.
4) That which is SELECTED to come to pass at TIME-T is granted existence
5) That which is NOT SELECTED is REJECTED and thus NOT granted existence.
6) Therefore – for every perception which comes to pass within the human brain – there is ever only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN perception – granted existence within the human brain.
CONCLUSION:
On Determinism (aka Calvinism) man’s brain is never granted the function of choosing between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
Because where the perception that [X] is TRUE is infallibly decreed – then that is the only perception granted existence within that human brain concerning [X].
The ALTERNATIVE perception concerning [X] is not granted existence within that human brain – because it would represent an ALTERNATIVE from that which is infallibly decreed – which is not possible.
So in Calvinism – the human brain is not granted the function of being convinced about any [X] – because that function would entail a LIBERTARIAN choice between TRUE and FALSE concerning that [X]
I have nearly completely abandoned my “neo-reformed” doctrinal positions, so I’m generally in agreement with you. But on this point, I was taught a somewhat different perspective. The idea, based in part on Romans 3:10-11, was that everyone is under wrath because of sin (generally our own sin, although we inherit the sinful nature because of Adam). In my version of “Calvinist light”, as you’ve called it, Grace is freely offered to all. So if any sinner would turn in faith, they could be saved. However, no sinner ever does, because they love their sin. So for anyone to be saved, the Father must first draw him (John 6:44) and work a change in his heart. Therefore, He chooses some to save, and lets the rest continue on the path they’ve already chosen.
I still partly believe it this way, with some adjustment. Since I’ve never believed in Limited Atonement (because it’s a position based more on logic than scripture), I really believe Grace for salvation is available to all. In John 3:16 Jesus says “WHOSOEVER believeth”, and in John 12:32 He says “I will draw ALL men unto me.” I still believe people will continue in sin until they have a heart change, but I believe that happens to everybody who hears the Gospel, “for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Romans 1:16) (also reference Rom 10:14). But while I believe everyone hearing the gospel is also given the Grace to respond, I believe they are also free to turn away from the truth (2 Tim 4:4; Heb 12:25).
Now, I’m still in transition, so my thoughts on these things aren’t fully developed. I appreciate the help I’ve received through both your blog and your podcast.
Welcome Everett! Enjoy!
What if God’s light is powerful enough to draw anyone and everyone sufficiently to an opportunity and enablement to make a free decision… what’s the problem?
And John 6:44 is not a gotcha verse if one recognizes that the one drawn is not logically guaranteed in that grammatical construction to either come or to be raised up just because he is drawn. Only the one drawn and who comes is promised to be raised up. Even if “drag” is used here or in John 12:32… the meaning is only to drag to a location… There is no guaranteed change made in the person’s nature just by being drawn. Once they are brought to the location or before the person, like Christ… they have to make a decision what to do next and how to respond to the options and information they now have in that location or before that person!
The same Greek word for “drawn” is used in the LXX in Neh 9:30… and that group of Israelites, though drawn by God to the opportunity to obey Him, did not do it. The Hebrew word for “drawn” used in Neh 9:30 is also used in Hos 11:4-5, which again is showing that Israel was “drawn” by God with love to Himself, but they refused Him. Paul recalls this kind of drawing with love, using the words of Isaiah where God said – “All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people” Rom 10:21. Does God only play act His love already knowing it only can and will be rejected? Not my God.
Paul and Silas were “drawn” before the rulers of Philippi and then thrown into prison (Acts 16:19)… There they were free and able to either groan and complain or pray and sing! We know what they freely chose to do! I actually prefer the idea of “drag”. God graciously “drags” us to a place of decision. We cannot escape that “grace”, and we are now able and responsible for how we freely respond to it… making us clearly without excuse at the final judgment of God!
*********
Are you familiar with identifying distributed and non-distributed terms when premises are being evaluated as to what is logically valid to prove from them? In 6:44 the “no one can come” is a distributed term… but “the Father draws” is a non-distributed term. The “will be raised up” is non-distributed also.
In brief Jesus is saying that all who come will be raised up. But the verse is not logically proving that they are the only ones to be raised up (deceased infants maybe also).
And being drawn is necessary to enable coming, but the premise doesn’t prove it is the only thing necessary to enable coming (the context reveals looking at the Son and believing is also part of those coming). Nor does the verse guarantee that all who are drawn, and therefore enabled to come, will actually come.
The emphasis on coming and believing is throughout this passage. It fits the purpose of the book…that unbelievers reading would be enabled/drawn to come and believe and then receive the everlasting life of the new birth (20:31). But reading doesn’t cause coming and believing.
Reading determinism into these verses that don’t clearly prove it and whose purpose even contradicts determinism is just sad!
Hi Brian, thanks for your replies. I have always linked John 6.65, with John 6.44. Is this not a fair link?. What I mean is that it seems that Jesus simply exegetes 6.44, for himself in 6.65 . If he is not exegeting 6.44, in 6,65, then what.? Why do so few go to the commentary of Jesus himself. And it seems clear that “granted unto him” in 6.65, is not a forced internal change, but the Father deciding to send the Son, and also to share the son by “means”, which must, and can be adhered to. How does the Calvinist see 6.65, and the commentary of Jesus himself. It seems clear it is the Lords decision both to send the gospel the word and Jesus, not necessarily in that order. Where here does John even hint at forced regeneration ? How do they come to the conclusion that drag means forceful conversion?
Mike Winger, at Bible Thinker, touches on the problem. The Calvinist places his theoretical framework above scripture, in effect trumping anything that scripture actually says with his preconceived systematic. Any time an individual places a framework over scripture they will ignore, redefine and reinterpret its meaning in order to force it into their framework, and appear unaware they are doing so.
It is the way our minds work, and a perversion of the healthy process of building an accurate worldview. Note that scripture implores us to set our minds on God’s Word so that our faulty thinking can be renewed. But how does our thinking become faulty in the first place?
We believe a lie, namely that God is not truly good and trustworthy. Or that men are inherently evil, justifying abuse, oppression and even murder. If we allow the lies and doctrines of men or demons to seep into our mind, our understanding of scripture and reality will be skewed.
Satan, and his tools in this world, make great use of this process in order to work great deception upon mankind. I would even go so far as to say our entire modern world is a false reality which has most under its spell, disabling us from seeing how unnatural and evil are many of the foundational beliefs upon which modern societies are built.
The mind has an inherent ability to compartmentalize, thus allowing an individual to hold completely antithetical beliefs without seeing their contradiction. People are programmed to unquestioningly embrace a system, rather than think carefully through all of its ramifications. It is wide-scale mind control, and it is very effective in manipulating people to loyally defend religious, political and other programs.
Wonderful post TS00 – thank you!
Yes – I”ve read testimonies from people who got sucked into the new age teachings – by teachers who actually use the bible.
The process is always the same
1) Teach the human mind EXTRA BIBLICAL concepts – until that mind embraces them as truth
2) Use the bible as a book of PROOF TEXTS to affirm those EXTRA BIBLICAL concepts
That human mind – from that point on – is guaranteed to read those EXTRA BIBLICAL concepts into every verse
Grant asks “Why do so few go to the commentary of Jesus himself. ”
Here is Jesus’ commentary in John 6:
1. “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing,…”
— “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;”
— “no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
— “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
Grant… they read “granted unto him” to mean “passively received by him”, the same as “drawn” like a physical net that has no ability to refuse to be drawn and must end up coming. But they are just reading their theology into those verses.
brianwagner writes, “they read “granted unto him” to mean “passively received by him”, the same as “drawn” like a physical net that has no ability to refuse to be drawn and must end up coming.”
The initial read is that this reinforces the previous, “No one can come to me…” This identifies the Total Depravity of man and his inability to come to salvation absent the direct intervention of God in his life. This opposes the philosophy of TS00 and FOH.
What does Jesus mean in saying, “granted”? It certainly traces back to His earlier statement, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;..” linking “grant” to “draw.” This reinforces what the Baptist had said, “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.” Paul expresses this when he writes, “God who has begun a good work in you…” and “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined…Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” then, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” To say that “it is granted unto him,” speaks to the active involvement of God in bringing a person to salvation. Paul writes, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
Then Brian writes, “they read “granted unto him” to mean “passively received by him”,,,” Brian is correct, but he should have written, “passively but joyfully received by him.” to capture the Calvinist take on this.
rhutchin
Then Brian writes, “they read “granted unto him” to mean “passively received by him”,,,” Brian is correct, but he should have written, “passively but joyfully received by him.” to capture the Calvinist take on this.
br.d
This reminds me of of that scene in Bruce Almighty – where he stands on the wall – stretches out his hands – and commands “LOVE ME”. :-]
I find it telling that Calvinists always weaves together snippets of unrelated passages to concoct their theories. One would think it would be most relevant to view what Jesus himself said about drawing men. One would then see how Jesus compares his own need to be lifted up to the serpent being lifted up on a pole. Both offer the life-giving remedy that is so needed, and both require voluntary trust.
“and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Jn 12:32
The life and death of Jesus is the compelling, in-the-flesh manifestation of God’s love and desire to save all men. There could be no greater demonstration of God’s genuine love that could draw the prodigal back to his waiting father. But if that is not what one prefers to see in scripture, one will be tempted to concoct convoluted theories of one’s own.
Those are excellent points TS00!
The narrative of the serpent in the wilderness especially!
And yes I can see how the Calvinist will gravitate towards those few verses which can be used to INFER determinism – while avoiding the thousands of places in scripture which presuppose the opposite.
Good point!
br.d writes, “And yes I can see how the Calvinist will gravitate towards those few verses which can be used to INFER determinism – while avoiding the thousands of places in scripture which presuppose the opposite.”
The key terms, “INFER” and “presuppose.” In the end, you say nothing of substance.
br.d
And yes I can see how the Calvinist will gravitate towards those few verses which can be used to INFER determinism – while avoiding the thousands of places in scripture which presuppose the opposite.”
rhutchin
The key terms, “INFER” and “presuppose.” In the end, you say nothing of substance.
br.d
Silly argument! “Infer” and “presuppose” are descriptive terms in linguistics.
The one who cannot discern their substance probably didn’t do well in English. :-]
TS00 writes, ““and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Jn 12:32”
The term, “men,” is added by presumption. Jesus said that He would draw “pantas” to Himself. Jesus could not have meant “each and every individual,” because history declares many to live and die without hearing the gospel. Thus, Jesus meant that He would draw both Jews and non-Jews to Himself. So, Paul explains, “…by revelation God made known to me the mystery…which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,…”
Jesus could not have meant [all without distinction] because history declares [NOT all without distinction].
br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
It needs to be kept in mind that universal, divine determinism is an INTERPRETATION of Scripture, an INTERPRETATION that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.
br.d quotes William Lane Craig, “It needs to be kept in mind that universal, divine determinism…”
I think Craig meant universal, divine theological determinism. UDD would be that which describes natural events that occur absent God. Naturally, Reformed divines would see UDD as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture as they should.
William Lane Craig:
-quote:
Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledged that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable.
rhutchin
I think Craig meant universal, divine theological determinism. …that which describes natural events that occur absent God.
br.d
Yeh – right – that’s why “Classical Reformed Divines” saw it in scripture!
Your statement here reminds me of Ravi Zacharias laments – about Christians who make statements without thinking. :-]
I love it when Calvinists are at least honest with what they believe rather than hiding behind deceptive words and invented terminology that misdirects the hearer. The Dishonesty employed to make things sound MUCH MUCH nicer than what they really are should be a HUGE RED FLAG to ALL. Yes I mean ALL. Not just a select group.
I came across a reformed website that embraces TULIP consistently and is proud of it.
Check this out from the Author D. Engelsma the quotes below are ALL (yes ALL) from his article no comments added by me, these quotes are not taken out of context, NOTICE the Hatred towards the Biblical Truth that God Genuinely LOVES ALL, this is Calvinism in all it’s distorted glory… see what you think :
START of QUOTE:
The Twofold Purpose of the Gospel David J. Engelsma
Calvin faces the question, how can election be harmonized with the call of the gospel to others besides those who are saved?…
Calvin’s answer is…that by external preaching all are called to faith and repentance, and that yet the Spirit of faith and repentance is not given to all.”2
Addressing himself to the assumption that the external call to everyone implies a universal grace of God to all and a universal promise to all, Calvin reminds such objectors to election that God is not “under a fixed obligation to call all equally.”
Calvin… in chapter 24 of book 3. He begins by stating that he will now treat “both of the calling of the elect, and of the blinding and hardening of the ungodly.”4 For Calvin, “the preaching of the gospel springs from the fountain of election,”5 that is, the preaching of the gospel is due to the eternal love of God’s heart for the elect, is God’s gift to the elect, and is intended to save the elect, and the elect only. Accordingly, the call of the gospel, “which consists not merely of the preaching of the word, but also of the illumination of the Spirit,” is exclusively for the elect.6 God withholds the call from the reprobate.
…Calvin, for there are two species of calling—there is a universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom He designs the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit He causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts.7
The “special call,” or efficacious call, which consists of both the preaching of the gospel and the “internal illumination of the Spirit,”8 is for the elect alone. The call in the preaching comes also to many reprobates, but God’s “design” with the call to them is that it be to them a savour of death and the ground of worse condemnation. Calvin does not regard the external call of the gospel as grace to all hearers or as an expression of God’s sincere desire to save all.
Calvin comes back to the assertion that the preaching of the gospel, and particularly the call of the gospel, has a twofold effect and that this effect is determined by God’s purpose in election and reprobation.
…Those, therefore, whom He has created for dishonour during life and destruction at death, that they may be vessels of wrath and examples of severity, in bringing to their doom, He at one time deprives of the means of hearing His word, at another by the preaching of it blinds and stupefies them the more.9
So far from being grace to the reprobate, the preaching of the gospel is a judgment against them, for by the preaching God blinds and stupefies them. “God sends His word to many whose blindness He is pleased to aggravate.”10
He directs His voice to them, but it is that they may turn a deafer ear; He kindles a light, but it is that they may be more stupid; He employs a remedy, but it is that they may not be cured.11
…Calvin declares it to be “incontrovertible, that to those whom God is not pleased to illumine, He delivers His doctrine wrapt up in enigmas, so that they many not profit by it, but be given over to greater blindness.”12
Whether one agrees with Calvin’s interpretation of these texts or not, it is clear that he does not explain them as teaching that God is gracious in the gospel to elect and reprobate alike or that God sincerely desires all men to be saved.
The Fiction That Grace Is Offered Equally to All
Pighius made grace common to all men in the offer of salvation…
Calvin calls this a “fiction.”
“The fiction of Pighius is puerile and absurd when he interprets grace to be God’s goodness in inviting all men to salvation, although all were lost in Adam. For Paul most clearly separates the foreknown from those on whom God deigned not to look in mercy … Pighius … holds fast the fiction that grace is offered equally to all, but that it is ultimately rendered effectual by the will of man, just as each one is willing to receive it.16
Pighius, “this worthless fellow,” thought to find an argument against election in the fact that “Christ, the redeemer of the whole world, commanded the gospel to be preached to all men, promiscuously, generally, and without distinction.”17
Calvin makes plain that he is opposed not only to Pighius’ doctrine of free will, but also to his doctrine that God wills all men to be saved,
Calvin castigates Pighius for teaching that the mercy of God extends to others than the elect:
After this, Pighius, like a wild beast escaped from his cage, rushes forth, bounding over all fences in his way, uttering such sentiments as these: “The mercy of God is extended to everyone, for God wishes all men to be saved; for that end He stands and knocks at the door of our heart, desiring to enter.”22
By Calvin’s standard, an accurate one, wild beasts abound today, running loose in even nominally Reformed churches. We will do our best to cage them and to muzzle their ravings about a grace of God for all that wishes all to be saved and that stands offering and begging at the door of the sinner’s heart. With the teaching of Romans 9 and Romans 11, Calvin refutes these “puerile dreams.”23
God’s purpose with this call is determined by and is in harmony with His eternal counsel of predestination, election, and reprobation. He wills to call to save the elect, and He wills to call to work the condemnation of the reprobate. The call of the gospel to the elect is accompanied by the internal enlightening of the Spirit, so that they are efficaciously drawn to Christ by faith and are saved. The call to the reprobate is God’s demand, made in perfect righteousness and in utmost seriousness, that they do what is their duty to do. When God gives this command, He withholds from them the Spirit who alone is able to give the repentance and faith called for, whom God is not obligated to give to anyone, and instead hardens them in their unbelief.
END QUOTE
Nice Post GraceAdict
Notice this statement from John Calvin
So far from being grace to the reprobate, the preaching of the gospel is a judgment against them
Here we see the element of the “Moral Dualism” found within Gnosticism.
The “good” side of the “good-evil” dualism:
When Calvin’s god has decreed a person do [X]
And he then communicates that person do [X]
The “evil” side of the “good-evil” dualism
When Calvin’s god has decreed a person NOT do [X]
And he then communicates that person do [X]
If we know what to look for – we will discover various representations of the Gnostic “Moral Dualism” embedded within Calvinist language.
Grace Adict writes, “Check this out from the Author D. Engelsma the quotes below are ALL (yes ALL) from his article no comments added by me, these quotes are not taken out of context, NOTICE the Hatred towards the Biblical Truth that God Genuinely LOVES ALL, this is Calvinism in all it’s distorted glory… ”
Calvinism seeks to answer the question, “If God so loves the world, why doesn’t God save each and every person?” This is not hatred toward Biblical truth but a searching of Biblical truth to discover the answer.
rhutchin
Calvinism seeks to answer the question, “If God so loves the world, why doesn’t God save each and every person?” This is not hatred toward Biblical truth but a searching of Biblical truth to discover the answer.
br.d
A more clearly Calvinistic question would be:
“If Calvin’s god loves his creatures then why does he design the vast majority of them for eternal torment in the lake of fire”
br.d
You want to add in there that they are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God. Some of the vessels of wrath are even “baptize into the covenant” in Reformed churches.
So here is that version…
A more clearly Calvinistic question would be:
“If Calvin’s God loves His creatures, and fearfully and wonderfully makes them in His own image, then why does He design the vast majority of them for eternal torment in the lake of fire?”
Doesn’t that sound like a bizarre way to create?
FOH
A more clearly Calvinistic question would be:
“If Calvin’s God loves His creatures, and fearfully and wonderfully makes them in His own image, then why does He design the vast majority of them for eternal torment in the lake of fire?”
Doesn’t that sound like a bizarre way to create?
br.d
Yup! Where does scripture paint a picture of a THEOS who designs his creatures as vessels of wrath and then says “It is good”.
Pretty contorted if you ask me.
br.d writes, “A more clearly Calvinistic question would be:
“If Calvin’s god loves his creatures then why does he design the vast majority of them for eternal torment in the lake of fire”
FOH writes, “Doesn’t that sound like a bizarre way to create?”
Perhaps, br.d and FOH did not understand the question, so let’s ask it again.
If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
RH If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
GA Like FORCE them to OBEY? Like FORCE them to Love him? The Calvinist turns his back on the clear and simple solution laid out in scripture “Free Will” which answers all of the Calvinist questions without any contradictions and without profaning the Holy name of God BUT the Calvinist refuses to see that. He instead would rather embrace a gnostic idea of God by making God the Author of Evil, making God into a hateful being, create a secret will of God that just magically agrees with his own assumptions, and then use “mystery and paradox” to cover up all of his inconsistencies and misrepresentations of God’s moral character that he has just engaged in.
GraceAdict writes, “he Calvinist turns his back on the clear and simple solution laid out in scripture “Free Will” which answers all of the Calvinist questions”
Free will does not explain anything. Both those who accept salvation and those who reject salvation do so with “free will” so free will cannot explain why some accept and some reject. There is a motive or reason why some exercise free will unto salvation and some exercise free will to reject. GA is afraid to get into those reasons and then complains about Calvinists because they search the Scriptures to discover those reasons and motives.
When Consistent Calvinists talk about Free will, they really don’t mean free will do they? They redefine almost every key term so that on the surface it seems like they are saying the same thing but in the end Free will is NOT free will.
God first forcibly changes a person against his will through regeneration (nothing in that was desired by the person- not free will) and then that new creature now has no option but to believe. (Nice try but that is not free-will) All of this is not genuine free-will is it? it is still a puppet on a string, yet let’s pretend it is not.
Yup – Calvinist talk about free is all based on subtle technicalities.
Essentially the creature is free to be/do what Calvin’s god decrees
Nothing more – nothing less.
Where the creature is designed/decreed to be a frog – that creature is free to be a frog.
But not free to be a humming-bird.
Likewise where Calvin’s god designs/decrees a person to sin – that person is free to sin.
But NOT free (and not permitted) to refrain from sin.
“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” Henry Ford, 1909.
Free to choose any color you want!
You hit the bulls-eye once again FOH!
I call that DOUBLE-SPEAK :-]
Dr. William Lutz – Double-speak
-quote
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity. The incongruity between what is said or left unsaid and what really is.
It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between SEEM and BE.
GraceAdict writes, “When Consistent Calvinists talk about Free will, they really don’t mean free will do they?”
Calvinists define “free will” as actions taken, or decisions made, by people not under coercion who are prompted to act by a reason or motive and the the action is taken willingly and voluntarily.
Then, “God first forcibly changes a person against his will through regeneration (nothing in that was desired by the person- not free will) and then that new creature now has no option but to believe.”
One might use the analogy or a blind man gaining his sight or a deaf man gaining the ability to hear. It opens up a whole new world from which they were deprived while unregenerate, blind or deaf. Regeneration removes slavery to sin and restores free will. Even GA did not complain when God regenerated him or demand that God reverse the change He had worked in him. Correct???
GA,
I am sure you will catch this huge mistake by RH….
“Regeneration removes slavery to sin and restores free will.”
I think that is what Arminians teach with “prevenient grace” (i.e Everyone needs/ and gets it) . but Arminians go on to add that man can then freely choose or not choose God.
Of course there is no such freedom in “Irresistible Grace” —- but they cannot see that.
Basically in Calvinism you are save twice. Regeneration “removes slavery to sin” and then justification removes consequence of sin.
All of it being irresistible of course!
FOH writes, “I think that is what Arminians teach with “prevenient grace” (i.e Everyone needs/ and gets it)…Of course there is no such freedom in “Irresistible Grace” —-”
If everyone receives prevenient grace then it is irresistible and does not convey freedom “but Arminians go on to add that man can then freely choose or not choose God.” Arminians are mixed up under your philosophy.
rhutchin
If everyone receives prevenient grace then it is irresistible and does not convey freedom “but Arminians go on to add that man can then freely choose or not choose God.” Arminians are mixed up under your philosophy.
br.d
You might want to examine the logic (if one would call it that) of that statement
Firstly- the fact that everyone receives it would not dictate its attributes (resistible or not) or what it conveys.
Secondly – since the first premise is IRRATIONAL the second one simply follows the same error.
Someone is mixed up alright! :-]
br,d writes, “Firstly- the fact that everyone receives it would not dictate its attributes (resistible or not) or what it conveys.”
If everyone receives X, then no one could resist receiving X – the gift of X was irresistible. Who really understands what you are trying to argue.
br,d
Firstly- the fact that everyone receives it would not dictate its attributes (resistible or not) or what it conveys.”
rhutchin
If everyone receives X, then no one could resist receiving X – the gift of X was irresistible.
br.d
In Theological Determinism this statement would be true – IF and ONLY IF – the THEOS determined everyone to receive [X]
But it does not hold true – outside of Theological Determinism.
Therefore the statement follows the “Fallacy of Hasty Generalization”
rhutchin
Who really understands what you are trying to argue.
br.d
I understand your situation here.
FOH is absolutly correct here!
There is absolutely no difference in compatiblisitic free will pre-or-post regeneration.
Theological Determinism is exactly the same in both cases.
And compatiblisitic free will is exactly the same in both cases.
In both cases the creature is ONLY free do be/do what is DECREED.
Nothing More – Nothing Less.
So in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) regeneration makes not difference in the state of ones liberty.
We must always remember:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
He rejects elements of Non-Calvinist doctrine and calls them semi-heretical
But give him five minutes and carefully watch.
He’ll be working to SMUGGLE those very elements back into his system – in camouflaged form. :-]
br.d writes, “In both cases the creature is ONLY free do be/do what is DECREED.”
Yet, he does so willfully and voluntarily, therefore not under compulsion or coercion by God, for reasons that God perfectly understands so that God knows what the creature will do before the creature has made that decision.
br.d
In both cases the creature is ONLY free do be/do what is DECREED.”
rhutchin
Yet, he does so willfully and voluntarily,
br.d
DUH!
NO will or volition is permitted – other than what is DECREED.
A nice little robot world! :-]
br.d writes, “NO will or volition is permitted – other than what is DECREED.”
Actually, God works through the wills of people to bring about events He has decreed. Examples in Scripture are the brothers of Joseph selling him, David’s adultery with Bathsheba, Peter’s denial of Christ, and the Romans crucifixion of Christ, etc. God’s actions are made possible by His infinite understanding of His creation even before He created the universe.
br.d
In Theological Determinism NO will or volition is permitted – other than what is DECREED.”
rhutchin
Actually, God works through the wills of people to bring about events He has decreed. ….etc
br.d
We understand how Theological Determinism works
Calvin’s god decrees it.
And nothing is permitted to falsify or negate that decree.
Therefore NO will or volition is permitted other than what is decreed.
And also – every neurological impulse is decreed – so that pretty much controls everything
A nice little robot world :-]
br,d writes, “We understand how Theological Determinism works
Calvin’s god decrees it.”
We have established that your definition of Theological Determinism disagrees with Calvinism. So, no sense to link them anymore.
Then, “And also – every neurological impulse is decreed – ”
But not initiated by God. God decrees but does not coerce neurological impulses withing the brain of the person. Thus, Peter denies Jesus not under compulsion of God’s decree (as communicated by Jesus) but willingly and voluntarily.
br,d
We understand how Theological Determinism works – Calvin’s god decrees it.”
rhutchin
We have established that your definition of Theological Determinism disagrees with Calvinism. So, no sense to link them anymore.
br.d
Not you’re call.
However, you are still free to link what you want to try to link (or try to un-link in this case).
And we also know every neurological impulse is decreed – which pretty much controls every.
rhutchin
But not initiated by God. God decrees but does not coerce neurological impulses withing the brain of the person.
br.d
Everyone here already understands determinism/compatiblism’s NON-Coercion argument.
But trying to argue that the CAUSE of the EFFECT (i.e. the decree) is not “initiated” by Calvin’s god is going take a whole lot of double-speak! :-]
br.d writes, “But trying to argue that the CAUSE of the EFFECT (i.e. the decree) is not “initiated” by Calvin’s god is going take a whole lot of double-speak!”
God’s decree is not the cause of man’s action. God decreed, as attested by Christ, that Peter deny Christ, but God did not cause Peter to deny Christ. God’s decree made Peter’s denial certain, and Peter willfully and voluntarily made it necessary
br.d
But trying to argue that the CAUSE of the EFFECT (i.e. the decree) is not “initiated” by Calvin’s god is going take a whole lot of double-speak!”
rhutchin
God’s decree is not the cause of man’s action.
br.d
Yeh right! – and that’s why Calvinism is called “Universal Divine *CAUSAL* Determinism” :-]
Causal determinism in Christian Philosophy is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is CAUSED by an antecedent event.
And in this case by a THEOS.
But we’re all familiar with the Calvinist escape mechanism:
Some creaturely attribute causes some creaturely attribute – causes some creaturely attribute – and on into infinite regress :-]
br.d writes, “Causal determinism in Christian Philosophy is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is CAUSED by an antecedent event.
And in this case by a THEOS.”
That is why “Universal Divine *CAUSAL* Determinism” in introducing the term, “Divine,” and defined by the Scriptures, provides for God to use secondary means to “cause” that which God has determined to occur.
br.d
“Causal determinism in Christian Philosophy is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is CAUSED by an antecedent event.
And in this case by a THEOS.”
rhutchin
That is why “Universal Divine *CAUSAL* Determinism” in introducing the term, “Divine,” and defined by the Scriptures, provides for God to use secondary means to “cause” that which God has determined to occur.
br.d
That’s right – the Calvi argument is going to be:
Some secondary means – caused some secondary means – caused some secondary means – and on in to infinite regress.
When in LOGIC – it is impossible for a secondary means to CAUSE itself.
But rather every secondary means constitutes an EFFECT
Which is itself CAUSED by a *PRIMARY* means or cause.
But that’s the difference between LOGIC and Calvinism. :-]
br.d writes, “That’s right – the Calvi argument is going to be:
Some secondary means – caused some secondary means – caused some secondary means – and on in to infinite regress.”
The ultimate cause of all things is God by virtue of His creation of the world through which secondary causes arise. God is the cause of salvation for one and not another because we are told, “(for Jacob and Esau not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls) it was said to it was said to Rebecca, “The older shall serve the younger.” Elsewhere, we read, “The wages of sin is death,” and “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” God gives life to the sinner, but God does not coerce or compel the sinner to sin. James explians this, “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”
br.d
That’s right – the Calvi argument is going to be:
Some secondary means – caused some secondary means – caused some secondary means – and on in to infinite regress.”
rhutchin
The ultimate cause of all things is God by virtue of His creation of the world through which secondary causes arise
br.d
By virtue of his creation – by means of immutable DECREES of course !
Calvinists – always trying to take the DECREE out of their DECRETAL Theology. :-]
With their attribute of a secondary means causing some attribute of a secondary causing some attribute of a secondary cause – to infinite regress.
Don’t ever try to ask the Calvinist to follow his Theologies CAUSAL chain back to its origin! :-]
My favorite ploy is when he quotes scripture to support the opposite of what Calvinism asserts. Saves us from having to respond: Scripture says ‘A’, so even though Calvinism asserts ‘non-A’, we will pretend as if quoting scripture’s ‘A’ somehow confirms Calvinism’s ‘non-A’ and all is good. I presume the assumption is that everyone will run from the room screaming at the absurdity of it all, and the last one in the room wins.
I know what you mean – watching rhutchin’s posts often reminds me of watching pin-ball machine! :-]
TS00 writes, “Scripture says ‘A’, so even though Calvinism asserts ‘non-A’, we will pretend as if quoting scripture’s ‘A’ somehow confirms Calvinism’s ‘non-A’ and all is good.”
How about citing a couple examples from the Scripture to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.
Vast assumption, based on presuppositions. Scripture never states that God decreed Peter’s denial. You lnow, as it has been addressed here humdreds of times, that it is mere Calvinist presupposition that foreknowledge equates to foreordination. You can make that assumption, but it would be nice if it was acknowledged as such.
TS00 writes, “Scripture never states that God decreed Peter’s denial.”
In Matthew 26, “Jesus said to Peter, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”
If that is not a decree of God, then either Jesus is not God or Jesus did not say, “you will deny Me three times.”
Then, “that it is mere Calvinist presupposition that foreknowledge equates to foreordination.”
Calvinism says that God’s infinite understanding begets His ordination of all things (foreordination of future things) and this begets His foreknowledge. Calvinism does not equate foreknowledge to foreordination; it says that God knows that which He has foreordained. That is not an assumption – if God does not know that which He foreordains, then something is wrong. If God forgets that which He has foreordained, then He is not God.
TS00
Scripture never states that God decreed Peter’s denial.”
rhutchin
In Matthew 26, “Jesus said to Peter, “Assuredly, I say to you….etc….If that is not a decree of God, then either Jesus is not God or Jesus did not say, “you will deny Me three times.”
br,d
The LOGICAL fallacy here is to make knowledge CAUSAL.
In the NON-Calvinist world – the THEOS can have complete and comprehensive knowledge of future events without determining/decreeing those events.
Exactly. To assert that Jesus foreknowing what would happen equates to Jesus preordaining and causing it to happen is just silly. Foreknowledge does not equal causation. God also foreknew that Cain would slay Abel, but he warned him, urged him to resist the temptation. But I guess he was just playing games, pretending as if Cain could do something other than what had been eternally destined in the heavens by irresistible decree.
TS00 writes, “To assert that Jesus foreknowing what would happen equates to Jesus preordaining and causing it to happen is just silly.”
That Jesus foreknows the future males the future certain with that being both determined and necessary without having to account for what makes that future determined or necessary. Calvinist say that God is sovereign so God necessarily determines the future and that future is necessary through God’s direct action (e.g., the impregnation of Mary) or through secondary means (e.g., the crucifixion of Jesus). If God is not sovereign, then whoever is sovereign determines the future.
rhutchin
That Jesus foreknows the future males the future certain with that being both determined and NECESSARY
br.d
Dr. William Lane Craig – Necessity equates to Theological Fatalism
-quote
Here he [a writer asking Dr. Craig a question] is admitting that foreknowledge of what a person will freely choose does not make the action *NECESSARY*. So long as he agrees with that he has repudiated theological fatalism.
br.d
Additionally Jesus can have complete certainty of a future event with that event solely determined by the creature’s Libertarian Free Will.
Dr. William Lane Craig – when challenged to prove the existence of Divine Middle Knowledge
-quote
[We] …have merely to provide a Biblically faithful theory or model exhibiting the compatibility of God’s providence with libertarian free will…..as a theory which is epistemically possible.
br.d writes, “Jesus can have complete certainty of a future event with that event solely determined by the creature’s Libertarian Free Will. ”
Jesus having complete knowledge of a future event makes that event certain. Jesus having a complete understanding of all the factors that are in play that make the future necessary (including LFW) makes that future necessary. Jesus, by His understanding of the future, knows a future that is both certain and necessary.
br.d
Jesus can have complete certainty of a future event with that event solely determined by the creature’s Libertarian Free Will. ”
rhutchin
Jesus having complete knowledge of a future event makes that event certain.
br.d
As I’ve already said “certainty” is an EPISTEMIC attribute – so you’re simply restating my statement.
rhutchin
Jesus having a complete understanding of all the factors that are in play that make the future necessary (including LFW) makes that future necessary. Jesus, by His understanding of the future, knows a future that is both certain and necessary.
br.d
Everyone here but you knows – when you appeal to a future event being NECESSARY you are appealing to Theological Fatalism.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy- Theological Fatalism
-quote
Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act *NECESSARY*
No one really cares whether or not you agree – since you make so many off-the-wall statements anyway.
But you should at least be advised that everyone here knows better.
br.d writes, “Everyone here but you knows – when you appeal to a future event being NECESSARY you are appealing to Theological Fatalism.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy- Theological Fatalism
-quote
Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act *NECESSARY*”
Theological fatalism depends on infallible foreknowledge and ignores God’s infinite understanding. Foreknowledge only makes events certain. Understanding makes them necessary. So, if one ascribes necessity to foreknowledge, he either does not understand necessity or does not understand foreknowledge. Even br.d should be able to grasp that distinction. Maybe not!
As I said I’m not going to pursue this with you – since you simply see yourself as more authoritative than all academia.
Tell yourself whatever makes you happy.
Just be advised everyone already knows appealing to NECESSITY is Theological Fatalism
br.d writes, “Just be advised everyone already knows appealing to NECESSITY is Theological Fatalism”
Just to be clear. The appeal to necessity in Theological Fatalism is made on the basis of God’s foreknowledge and not His understanding. As William Craig argues, foreknowledge makes future events certain but not necessary.
br.d
Just be advised everyone already knows appealing to NECESSITY is Theological Fatalism”
rhutchin
Just to be clear. The appeal to necessity in Theological Fatalism is made on the basis of God’s foreknowledge and not His understanding. As William Craig argues, foreknowledge makes future events certain but NOT necessary.
br.d
Everyone already knows – the appeal to *FUTURE* events being *NECESSARY* is Theological Fatalism.
As Dr. Craig affirms in the statement you quote – “certain but NOT necessary”
br.d writes, ‘Everyone already knows – the appeal to *FUTURE* events being *NECESSARY* is Theological Fatalism.”
Just to be clear. The appeal to necessity in Theological Fatalism is made on the basis of God’s foreknowledge and not His understanding. As William Craig argues, foreknowledge makes future events certain but not necessary.
br.d
‘Everyone already knows – the appeal to *FUTURE* events being *NECESSARY* is Theological Fatalism.”
rhutchin
Just to be clear. The appeal to necessity in Theological Fatalism is made on the basis of God’s foreknowledge and not His understanding. As William Craig argues, foreknowledge makes future events certain but not necessary
br.d
You’ve almost got what everyone else here already knows.
You should already know that neither foreknowledge or understanding are CAUSAL.
So Foreknowledge in and of itself does not CAUSE events.
Likewise understanding in and of itself does not CAUSE events.
Therefore with both understanding and its sub-category “foreknowledge” it logically follows that events are CERTAIN but not NECESSARY.
When one appeals to NECESSITY in either case one is appealing to Theological Fatalism
You are of-course welcome to take whatever position makes you happy.
br.d writes, “When one appeals to NECESSITY in either case one is appealing to Theological Fatalism”
Theological Fatalism appeals to foreknowledge as the cause of the fatalism. br.d finally gets i right when he says, “So Foreknowledge in and of itself does not CAUSE events. Likewise understanding in and of itself does not CAUSE events.”
So, what has he been trying to say up to this point??
br.d
When one appeals to NECESSITY in either case (divine understanding or divine foreknowledge which is a subset of divine understanding) one is appealing to Theological Fatalism”
rhutchin
Theological Fatalism appeals to foreknowledge
br.d
And foreknowledge is a subset of divine understanding.
You’re welcome to take whatever position makes you happy.
But all forms of fatalism are hinged on an appeal to NECESSITY.
rhutchin: “Theological Fatalism appeals to foreknowledge”
br.d: “And foreknowledge is a subset of divine understanding.
You’re welcome to take whatever position makes you happy.
But all forms of fatalism are hinged on an appeal to NECESSITY.”
You are getting closer. Divine understanding is that which allows God to will all things – to ordain all things, so that Paul can write “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” In ordaining all things God has foreknowledge of that which He will do and knows all that will happen in His creation even before He creates. However, as Craig has argued, foreknowledge only makes the future certain; it does not make the future necessary. Thus, fatalism makes a false appeal to foreknowledge to show necessity.
rhutchin
Thus, fatalism makes a false appeal to foreknowledge to show necessity.
br.d
Wooow! Talk about a fly ball to left-field! :-]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act NECESSARY
rhutchin: “Thus, fatalism makes a false appeal to foreknowledge to show necessity.”
br.d
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act NECESSARY>
Yep. Thanks for the citation.
There is no use, br.d, when a person will continually flip-flop, ignoring the reality that one thing contradicts another, then feign surprise when anyone suggests he is being inconsistent. It is all just a game.
br.d writes, “the THEOS can have complete and comprehensive knowledge of future events without determining/decreeing those events.”
LOL!!! So, a THEOS can have complete and comprehensive knowledge of future events without that future being certain or necessary. I guess the Theos’ knowledge is neither “complete” nor “comprehensive” if the future is not determined/decreed/
br.d
In the Non-Calvinist system the THEOS can have complete and comprehensive knowledge of future events without determining/decreeing those events.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! So, a THEOS can have complete and comprehensive knowledge of future events without that future being certain or necessary. I guess the Theos’ knowledge is neither “complete” nor “comprehensive” if the future is not determined/decreed/
br.d
I guess you haven’t heard of divine Middle-Knowledge – where divine infallible certainty is an epistemic attribute. :-]
BTW – if you’re going to appeal to the future being “necessary” – then you’re appealing to Theological Fatalism which I don’t think you really intended to do.
Otherwise – what you have (in Calvinism) is of course Theological Determinism.
And as we can see – Theological Determinism itself is not necessary for full and comprehensive divine omniscience.
br.d writes, “I guess you haven’t heard of divine Middle-Knowledge – where divine infallible certainty is an epistemic attribute.”
Middle knowledge deals with a possible future. When God chooses the world to create, He then has a complete and comprehensive knowledge of the actual future.
Then, “BTW – if you’re going to appeal to the future being “necessary” – then you’re appealing to Theological Fatalism which I don’t think you really intended to do.”
Fatalism deals with a future that has no purpose where a person cannot overcome his future. Theological fatalism does not exist since God gives the future purpose and people can overcome their future with God’s help – nothing fatalistic about that.
Then, “and as we can see – Theological Determinism itself is not necessary for full and comprehensive divine omniscience.”
Sure, it requires God to be sovereign. Of course, if God is not sovereign, then He is not God.
br.d
“I guess you haven’t heard of divine Middle-Knowledge – where divine infallible certainty is an epistemic attribute.”
rhutchin
Middle knowledge deals with a possible future. When God chooses the world to create, He then has a complete and comprehensive knowledge of the actual future.
br.d
And provides a way for complete comprehensive omniscience of future free creaturely events without the need for predetermining them.
BTW – if you’re going to appeal to the future being “necessary” – then you’re appealing to Theological Fatalism which I don’t think you really intended to do.”
quote from Dr. William Lane Craig provided.
rhutchin
Fatalism deals with a future that has no purpose where a person cannot overcome his future. Theological fatalism does not exist since God gives the future purpose and people can overcome their future with God’s help – nothing fatalistic about that.
br.d
No need for me to pursue this with you – since Theological Fatalism has been for years well defined in Christian Philosophy.
Tell yourself whatever makes you happy.
BTW: we can see – Theological Determinism itself is not necessary for full and comprehensive divine omniscience.”
rhutchin
Sure, it requires God to be sovereign. Of course, if God is not sovereign, then He is not Go
br.d
That is in fact the philosophy of the Theological Determinist.
br.d writes, “And provides a way for complete comprehensive omniscience of future free creaturely events without the need for predetermining them.”
Yet, in creating the world, God determined – made certain – that which He knew through His complete comprehensive omniscience of the future. The issue then is the extent to which God’s interaction with the world makes some events necessary. For example, God’s impregnation of Mary made that event necessary.
Then, “BTW – if you’re going to appeal to the future being “necessary” – then you’re appealing to Theological Fatalism which I don’t think you really intended to do.””
Whether the future is fatalistic depends on God’s involvement. When Romans 8 tells us, “God works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose,” we would not label that fatalistic as it reveals purpose in the future. However, where Romans 8 tells us, “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,” we could call that fatalistic as the person cannot change his situation and does not want to change his situation. Theological Fatalism suggests involvement of a Theos, but it really refers to the lack of involvement of a Theos reducing it to simple Fatalism. What does “theological” impart to fatalism that is not already there?
Then, “Theological Fatalism has been for years well defined in Christian Philosophy.”
Theological Fatalism is generally premised on knowledge of the future as the vehicle to remove freedom of choice. It completely ignores infinite understanding of future free choices as the vehicle for ensuring free choice. I think Theological Fatalism is a confused term.
Then, ‘BTW: we can see – Theological Determinism itself is not necessary for full and comprehensive divine omniscience.”
Agreed. But full and comprehensive divine omniscience.begets Theological Determinism. When God created a world for which he had full and comprehensive divine omniscience, He created a fully determined – or certain – world. Then, by His infinite understanding of that world, He ensured the necessity of of those events that were determined/certain.
In other words, rh embraces fatalism, but asserts, falsely, that if there is a ‘purpose’ behind the lack of genuine freedom given to creatures to control their fate then it can be declared not fatalism.
In reality, fatalism simply requires that all things be preordained, and men have no genuine alternative to the predetermined events that will irresistibly come to pass. This is, indeed, what Calvinism asserts, while trying to mask it under terms such as compatibilism, or pretending that men ‘choose’ that which has been unavoidably decreed for them. All that lipstick does not disguise their pig.
TS00
All that lipstick does not disguise their pig.
br.d
I loved this one! Yes exactly! :-]
TS00 writes, “fatalism simply requires that all things be preordained, and men have no genuine alternative to the predetermined events that will irresistibly come to pass.”
No. Fatalism says that a person’s destiny is controlled by an impersonal environment and nothing a person can do can overcome his destiny – life becomes meaningless. By giving life meaning, fatalism disappears. Somehow, allowing God to know the future before it happens makes life meaningless to some people.
RH: Writes “Somehow, allowing God to know the future before it happens makes life meaningless to some people.”
GA: Once again RH uses the term “know the future” but what he means is irresistibly determines the future so that there is no real choice…That is Calvinism’s understanding of Sovereign.
If you really meant “know the future” there would be NO Argument…but we know that you don’t mean that. It is a word game that you play.
Good point!
Calvinists often use the strategy of deflecting to divine knowledge as a way of HIDING the divine decree.
Generations ago – Calvinists were bold in their presentation of the HORRIBLE DECREE.
If the mainline Christians didn’t like it – the Calvinist simply didn’t care.
But today’s Calvinist looks for any mask he can find to hide the DECREE behind.
GraceAdict writes, “Once again RH uses the term “know the future” but what he means is irresistibly determines the future so that there is no real choice…”
God can determine the future by doing nothing as when God did nothing to keep Eve and then Adam eating the fruit. God determined that they would eat the fruit by opening the garden for Satan to enter and tempt Eve. God certainly did not misunderstand the consequences of giving Satan access to the garden.
rhutchin
God can determine the future by doing nothing
br.d
If you were in Geneva and John Calvin heard you say that – he would have your tongue run through with a hot iron :-]
John Calvin
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the ***AUTHOR*** of them. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (pg 176)
Author in the Old French of Calvin’s day is the word: “Auctor” – which means Originator, Creator, Instigator
br.d writes, “If you were in Geneva and John Calvin heard you say that – he would have your tongue run through with a hot iron :-]”
Not really. Calvin recognized that authors future events through secondary causes taking advantage of His understanding of those causes and the impacts they will have.
br.d
f you were in Geneva and John Calvin heard you say that – he would have your tongue run through with a hot iron :-]”
rhutchin
Not really. Calvin
br.d
What a hoot! rhutchin remakes both Calvinism and Calvin’s god in his own image! :-]
rhutchin
Fatalism says that a person’s destiny is controlled by an impersonal environment…etc
br.d
Only where Fatalism is NON-Theistic.
Additionally – there is a difference in general meaning between the terms Fatalism and Fate.
Fatalism is often defined as a psychological disposition of hopelessness.
Theological Fatalism however does not LOGICALLY entail a disposition to hopelessness.
On the contrary there are Theological Fatalists who insist it gives them a great sense of relief and confidence to believe a THEOS is in control of all things in the universe.
The term FATE in its usage however is frequently synonymous with PREDESTINE.
John Calvin uses it this way in the Institutes.
-quote
But how oft was it the FATE of the Church among the Jews to be so defaced that no comeliness appeared?
br.d writes, “On the contrary there are Theological Fatalists who insist it gives them a great sense of relief and confidence to believe a THEOS is in control of all things in the universe.”
Where the THEOS is the God of the Scriptures, no one would call it fatalistic.
br.d
On the contrary there are Theological Fatalists who insist it gives them a great sense of relief and confidence to believe a THEOS is in control of all things in the universe.”
rhutchin
Where the THEOS is the God of the Scriptures, no one would call it fatalistic.
br.d
You’ll have to take that up with them.
But I suspect their sense of relief and confidence probably is based on their belief that their THEOS is the god of scripture.
As I said – I’m not going to bother to pursue this with you since Theological Fatalism has been well defined for years in Christian Philosophy. And you obviously see yourself as more omniscient than all academia.
If I am not mistaken…RH used to clearly argue against simple Foreknowledge and argue for Foreordination/Causation now it seems like he is trying to cover his tracks by trying to make it sound more vague but in the end he is saying the same thing.
For a very long time – judging from his posts – I thought rhutchin was a teenager.
He certainly is highly imaginative – and extremely tenacious.
Even when he’s simply just making stuff up out of thin air – he’ll double-down on it.
when gets that way – he’s just chasing is own tail – and its a waste of time to get sucked into that game.
A few of his claims over time have been so antithetical to Calvin – I’m certain if he had made them in Calvin’s day in Geneva – Calvin’s magistrates would have had him publicly flogged.
I’m not sure about how stable what he says today is – cuz it will may very well change tomorrow.
GraceAdict writes, “RH used to clearly argue against simple Foreknowledge and argue for Foreordination/Causation now it seems like…”
In the absence of an argument, GA gets it wrong again.
rhutchin
One might use the analogy or a blind man gaining his sight or a deaf man gaining the ability to hear.
br.d
Except that in the gospel narratives blind people know they are blind and they WANT to see.
In the Calvinist narrative – blind people don’t know they are blind and the don’t WANT to see.
The regeneration process occurs WITHOUT their prior consent.
Simply because a DEAD person cannot KNOW, WANT, or CONSENT.
The regeneration process involves Calvin’s god ZAPPING the DEAD person with a DIVINE SPARK
That’s the way the ancient Gnostics in Augustine’s day would describe it.
Exactly br.d!
Let’s use an analogy of lepers ….. oh wait…. there is a biblical story of lepers.
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.”
——–
A. They call out for help!
B. To answer RH ubiquitous question of why would anyone pass up Christ all things being equal ….nine of them do not return to Christ at all.
C. Christ tells the “unchosen foreigner” ….. “your faith has made you well.”
One story alone dismantles Calvinism …..and there are hundreds like it!
FOH writes, “A. They call out for help!…”
Calvinism adds that God well understood the way these events would unfold even before He created the Universe. Nothing Calvinism says has been dismantled.
br.d writes, “The regeneration process occurs WITHOUT their prior consent.”
Yes. Whether Calvinist or Arminian grace is without prior consent.
Then, “The regeneration process involves Calvin’s god ZAPPING the DEAD person with a DIVINE SPARK
That’s the way the ancient Gnostics in Augustine’s day would describe it.”
Or as the Scripture describes it, “God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),…”
br.d
The regeneration process occurs WITHOUT their prior consent.”
rhutchin
Yes. Whether Calvinist or Arminian grace is without prior consent.
br.d
We we’re referring to “grace” which is a different topic – we were talking about the process of regeneration.
In the Arminian view regeneration does not occur prior to consent.
The regeneration process involves Calvin’s god ZAPPING the DEAD person with a DIVINE SPARK
That’s the way the ancient Gnostics in Augustine’s day would describe it.”
rhutchin
Or as the Scripture describes it, “God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),…”
br.d
As Dr. Ken Wilson in his research on Gnosticism in Augustine notes.
Many of the proof-texts used by Calvinists today were used identically by the Gnostics in Augustine’s day.
This differentiates Calvinism from Non-Calvinist usage of scripture.
br.d writes, “We we’re referring to “grace” which is a different topic – we were talking about the process of regeneration.”
Regeneration is by grace. It is unmerited. Grace initiates the process of regeneration. To say that a person is saved by grace is to say that a person is saved by actions initiated by God one of which is regeneration. So, not a different topic; just a more complete topic. As you state, “The regeneration process involves Calvin’s god ZAPPING the DEAD person with a DIVINE SPARK” Note that you have God beginning the action through regeneration. Ephesians 2 puts it this way, “…even when we were dead in trespasses, made God us alive together with Christ..”
Then, “Many of the proof-texts used by Calvinists today were used identically by the Gnostics in Augustine’s day.”
That just says that the Gnostics were reading the Scriptures and getting some things right. As long as people are reading the Scriptures, they are more likely to get it right. It is when the Gnostics deviated from the Scriptures that they got into trouble.
br.d
We weren’t referring to “grace” which is a different topic – we were talking about the process of regeneration.”
rhutchin
Regeneration is by grace. It is unmerited…..etc
br.d
I’m comfortable talking specifically about Calvinism’s process of regeneration.
And Dr. Ken Wilson’s research shows many of the proof-texts used by Calvinists today were used identically by the Gnostics in Augustine’s day.”
rhutchin
That just says that the Gnostics were reading the Scriptures and getting some things right.
br.d
Too funny! :-]
br.d
A more clearly Calvinistic question would be:
“If Calvin’s god loves his creatures then why does he design the vast majority of them for eternal torment in the lake of fire”
FOH writes, “Doesn’t that sound like a bizarre way to create?”
rhutchin
Perhaps, br.d and FOH did not understand the question,
br.d
Not a logical assumption.
I understood the question – and on top of that understood its wording was not clearly Calvinistic
I think the clearly Calvinistic answer is that Calvinism inherited the component of MORAL DUALISM from the ancient Gnostic/NeoPlatonist doctrines of Augustine’s day. And in that MORAL DUALISM good and evil are co-equal, co-necessary, and co-complimentary.
That being the case – Jon Edwards answer would probably be:: The glory of evil is necessary for the glory of good to shine forth.
From FundamentallyReformed website
“God holds creatures responsible for their sin, even when God was the One who foreordained that sin to happen, and used it for His ends.”
These guys actually believe this stuff…But of course God is not the author of evil (wink wink)
…and BR.D you are being unreasonable to say Calvinism adheres to moral dualism when it comes to God’s nature.
GA:
That is a good quote! Yes, unbelievable.
They teach (clear, quotable on their web sites) that man is responsible for his sin even though God immutably, irresistibly, eternally ORDAINED that the person commit all of those sins.
If we try to ask how does this add up to mercy, grace, and love (especially what we see Christ / Paul telling us to be like)…. they (in there Calvin-burn-them-at-the-stake sort of way) answer…..”who are you to question the potter?”
Good News!
FOH : If we try to ask how does this add up to mercy, grace, and love (especially what we see Christ / Paul telling us to be like)…. they (in there Calvin-burn-them-at-the-stake sort of way) answer…..”who are you to question the potter?”
GA: Even though they say who are you to question the potter….what they really mean is who are you question John Calvin or me Calvin’s disciple? What they say about the potter dishonors HIS HOLY name but they are happy to do so… it baffles me.
Yes….and when referring to the potter, they overlook the fact the the potter being mentioned is first found in Jeremiah 18-19 where God actually says He will change His plans if man does such-and-such!
“That cannot be!” they cry….. followed by some contorted, convoluted “explanation” of what God “must have meant.”
Why?
All to support their version of what God “must be like.”
FOH writes, “they overlook the fact the the potter being mentioned is first found in Jeremiah 18-19 where God actually says He will change His plans if man does such-and-such!
“That cannot be!” they cry….. followed by some contorted, convoluted “explanation” of what God “must have meant.”
We see here that FOH cut out those verses that tell us that God has infinite understanding of all things and with that infinite understanding is able to work all things according to the counsel of His will. FOH has a very abbreviated version of the Scriptures that allows him to drink milk all the time and never have to chew meat,
Calvinists always deflect to “infinite understanding” as a way to avoid the DECREES
In order to HIDE the fact that in Calvinism “infinite understanding” (in the form of Foreknowledge) is the CONSEQUENCE of DECREES.
Just because a being has “infinite understanding” does not necessitate or force that being to DESIGN people for sin or eternal torment.
And “infinite understanding” does not necessitate designing people to function as robots or puppets.
They cannot live with the idea that their philosophy dictates that God ordained/ decreed/ willed all sin, so they talk about “infinite understanding.”
Nah…. just own it Calvinists….. Calvinism teaches that God decreed all sin…for His glory.
What is puzzling is that they want to have such a huge God with “infinite understanding” but they cannot allow Him to be big enough to have created a world where He achieves His will and still gives man free will. That’s not a big God; that’s a small one.
Yes – its clear to me that Calvinists have a love-hate relationship with their own doctrine.
And that’s why Calvinist language is full of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
THANKS BR.D and FOH
Your back and forth on this is so clear. It is so clear but I guess one who has hardened his own heart wills not to see it. That is their choice and they are free to make it. A God less than Sovereign would be afraid to give man that choice BUT HE has given us that choice so here we are…
GraceAdict,
It is extremely important to note the difference between our Calvinist version of sovereign will …..and say, AW Tozer’s
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
Piper’s version of God’s sovereignty demands that every man’s choosing very evil was immutably decreed by God.
Tozer’s version of God’s sovereignty says that man’s choosing evil (or good) was part of God’s sovereign plan —- not that God Himself would choose which choice the man should make but that he (man) should be free to make it.
There is a huge difference!
Tozer’s answer’s RH’s “gotcha” question of why God does not save all men (even though He loves them all)….
“Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
God was not afraid to let the creatures that He loved (and created in His image) reject Him or call out to Him.
FOH writes, “Tozer’s answer’s RH’s “gotcha” question of why God does not save all men (even though He loves them all)….
“Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
God was not afraid to let the creatures that He loved (and created in His image) reject Him or call out to Him.”
Having moral freedom does not tell us how moral freedom is exercised. For that we need to look at the reasons/motives that determine how one exercises his moral freedom. Calvinists say that those who are slaves to sin will exercise their moral freedom to sin.
GraceAdict writes, “A God less than Sovereign would be afraid to give man that choice BUT HE has given us that choice so here we are…”
No conflict with God having infinite understanding of the man He created even to knowing the decisions men would make before they personally and freely made them.
rhutchin
No conflict with God having infinite understanding of the man He created even to knowing the decisions men would make before they personally and freely made them.
br.d
We know Calvin’s god has “infinite understanding” cuz he always does exactly what the Calvinist says! :-]
br.d writes, “We know Calvin’s god has “infinite understanding” cuz he always does exactly what the Calvinist says! :-]”
More importantly, God does exactly what He wants (and then He tells everyone, including Calvinists, what He has done).
br.d
We know Calvin’s god has “infinite understanding” cuz he always does exactly what the Calvinist says! :-]”
rhutchin
More importantly, God does exactly what He wants (and then He tells everyone, including Calvinists, what He has done).
br.d
Well – of course in Calvinism that would be his “Enunciated” will.
But then we have his SECRET will – which is often the total opposite of his “Enunciated” will.
And of course he doesn’t reveal is SECRET will – cuz then it wouldn’t be a secret
But the interesting thing in all this is how many of those SECRET things the Calvinist seems to always know! :-]
br.d writes, “But then we have his SECRET will – which is often the total opposite of his “Enunciated” will.”
Everyone recognizes this. God gave Israel the Ten Commandments and expected them to obey those commandments.
In Joshua, we read, ““This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it.” Then, we read, “Joshua said to all the people, “Behold, this stone shall be a witness to us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us. It shall therefore be a witness to you, lest you deny your God.” However, God understood the hearts of the people and knew that they would depart from His laws. God’s enuciated will is found in the law. God’s secret will is found in the actions of the people. No secrets here.
br.d
But then we have his SECRET will – which is often the total opposite of his “Enunciated” will.”
rhutchin
Everyone recognizes this. God gave Israel the Ten Commandments and expected them to obey those commandments.
br.d
Sure but ONLY Calvin’s god commands with his “Enunciated will” – the very things he SECRETLY doesn’t permit.
br.d writes, “Sure but ONLY Calvin’s god commands with his “Enunciated will” – the very things he SECRETLY doesn’t permit.”
Everyone pretty much understands this. God commanded that which He knew would not be obeyed. AS God said to Israel, ““Now therefore, write down this song for yourselves, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. When I have brought them to the land flowing with milk and honey, of which I swore to their fathers, and they have eaten and filled themselves and grown fat, then they will turn to other gods and serve them; and they will provoke Me and break My covenant. Then it shall be, when many evils and troubles have come upon them, that this song will testify against them as a witness; for it will not be forgotten in the mouths of their descendants, for I know the inclination of their behavior today, even before I have brought them to the land of which I swore to give them.”
br.d
Sure but ONLY Calvin’s god commands with his “Enunciated will” – the very things he SECRETLY doesn’t permit.”
rhutchin
Everyone pretty much understands this. God commanded that which He knew would not be obeyed
br.d
Sorry
No other theology would ever think to embrace the idea of a THEOS who uses his supernatural powers to not permit the very things he commands.
It is amazing how unable the Calvinist is to grasp what most others can so readily understand. God ‘using’ man’s evil hearts and plans to accomplish his will, as in Joseph and Jesus, is entirely different from God dreaming up, ordaining and irresistibly causing man’s evil actions.
How hard is it to grasp that God knew what Joseph’s brothers’ hatred would lead to, and that he trumped their plan to kill him by presenting them with an opportunity to get rid of him and profit from it? This does not require God to ordain and plant the evil desire to kill Joseph, and it certainly does not require him to approve of such a plan.
But then, Calvinists love to ignore the verses that describe God’s displeasure with the wicked things men do, things that never even entered his mind. (How do you ordain something you never thought of?) The same is true of the murder of Jesus, and any other evil act described in scripture. Because God foresaw an evil deed, and wove together – as only he can – various elements to bring good out of the evil the perpetrators intended does not make God the author or source of the evil act. It seems to me that only wilful blindness makes this difficult to see.
TS00 asks, “How hard is it to grasp that God knew what Joseph’s brothers’ hatred would lead to, and that he trumped their plan to kill him by presenting them with an opportunity to get rid of him and profit from it?”
How hard is it to grasp that God knew this before He created the universe and that it was all part of His plan?
Then, ‘Calvinists love to ignore the verses that describe God’s displeasure with the wicked things men do, things that never even entered his mind. (How do you ordain something you never thought of?)”
When God says that “things that never even entered his mind” He means that He never would command such things. To say that God never thought of all the evil that people would desire to do is to deny Him infinite understanding of the people He created and makes God ignorant. TS00 is certainly ignorant, but that does not mean that God must also be ignorant.
TS00
It is amazing how unable the Calvinist is to grasp what most others can so readily understand.
br.d
Don’t you chalk this up to indoctrination?
Most cult experts today will say that this phenomenon comes about by what is called: “Milieu control”
A term coined by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton
br.d writes, ‘No other theology would ever think to embrace the idea of a THEOS who uses his supernatural powers to not permit the very things he commands.”
God permits people to obey or not obey. God understands that people will not obey. God’s understanding does not restrict the actions people take, it only establishes that people will take those actions. God can command obedience while understanding that people will not obey.
br.d
‘No other theology would ever think to embrace the idea of a THEOS who uses his supernatural powers to not permit the very things he commands.”
rhutchin
God permits people to obey or not obey.
br.d
For Calvin’s god it is different – for Calvin’s god it is yes and no.
This is one thing that manifests Calvinism’s incorporation of the Moral Dualism of Gnosticism.
Obviously Calvin’s god permits people to obey his SECRET will – human attributes he FIRST-CONCEIVES and RENDERS-CERTAIN.
So he obviously permits people to obey his SECRET will.
However Calvin’s god knows it is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for the creature to DISOBEY his SECRET will.
He also knows he cannot PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate his decree.
Therefore disobeying the SECRET will – is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY and is not thus permitted.
But then there is his “Enuciated” will
Which is often the direction opposite of his SECRET will.
And Calvin’s god knows that when his “Enuciated” will is the opposite of his SECRET will – then it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for people to obey it. So in this case – people are NOT PERMITTED to obey the “Enunciated” will – while at the same time they are NOT PERMITTED to escape obeying his SECRET will.
rhutchin
God understands that people will not obey. God’s understanding does not restrict the actions people take, it only establishes that people will take those actions. God can command obedience while understanding that people will not obey.
br.d
You should know by now – understanding is not CAUSATIVE
The immutable DECREE is.
Calvinism is classified as DECRETAL Theology – Don’t you remember?
br.d writes, “You should know by now – understanding is not CAUSATIVE
The immutable DECREE is.”
Neither God’s understanding nor His decrees nor His knowledge is causative even though all encompass the means, or cause, to make that which is made certain by the decree also necessary by the causes. So, the Jews were the cause of Jesus being crucified (as Peter says, “let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified…) even though we later read, “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together “to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”
br.d
You should know by now – understanding is not CAUSATIVE
The immutable DECREE is.”
rhutchin
Neither God’s understanding nor His decrees nor His knowledge is causative
br.d
There is so much irony – in the love-hate relationship Calvinists have with their own doctrine!
Always trying to take the DECREES out of DECRETAL Theologically
And trying to take the CAUSE out of Universal Divine *CAUSAL* Determinism.
Where secondary means just happen to magically CAUSE themselves! :-]
rh writes:
“Neither God’s understanding nor His decrees nor His knowledge is causative even though all encompass the means, or cause, to make that which is made certain by the decree also necessary by the causes. ”
This sentence gets the gold star for the most convoluted, gobbledy gook nonsense I have heard a Calvinist mutter yet. 😉 I would love to see anyone try to make sense of it. I think a few more euphemisms would have really topped it off. 😉
FOH writes, “They cannot live with the idea that their philosophy dictates that God ordained/ decreed/ willed all sin, so they talk about “infinite understanding.”
Actually, “infinite understanding” is a Scriptural concept that you cut out of your Bible, so you would not have to deal with it.
br.d writes, “Calvinists always deflect to “infinite understanding” as a way to avoid the DECREES”
Not really. God’s infinite understanding makes it possible for Him to work all things after the counsel of His will (decree all things)
Then, “In order to HIDE the fact that in Calvinism “infinite understanding” (in the form of Foreknowledge) is the CONSEQUENCE of DECREES.”
This is wrong, It is infinite understanding that enables God to decree all things and God’s decree of ll things is His foreknowledge.
Then, “Just because [God] has “infinite understanding” does not necessitate or force that being…”
That is true of God – God was, and is, not forced to do anything nor required by necessity to do anything.
br.d
Calvinists always deflect to “infinite understanding” as a way to avoid the DECREES”
rhutchin
Not really. God’s infinite understanding makes it possible for Him to work all things after the counsel of His will (decree all things)
br.d
Like it takes a whole lot of “infinite understanding” to decree a whole lot of sin and evil! :-]
But here is the interesting question:
Does the degree of sinfulness of the sin and the evilness of the evil come about because his decree?
OR
Does he decree specific sins and evils because of their maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness?
br.d
In Calvinism “infinite understanding” (in the form of Foreknowledge) is the CONSEQUENCE of DECREES.”
rhutchin
This is wrong, It is infinite understanding that enables God to decree all things and God’s decree of ll things is His foreknowledge.
br.d
Here you’ve simply affirmed the very statement you claim to be wrong. :-]
br.d writes, “Like it takes a whole lot of “infinite understanding” to decree a whole lot of sin and evil! :-]”
Well, if you know what “infinite” means, then you know it is a “whole lot.”
Then, “But here is the interesting question:
Does the degree of sinfulness of the sin and the evilness of the evil come about because his decree?”
God’s decree makes sin certain but does not make it necessary.
Then, “Here you’ve simply affirmed the very statement you claim to be wrong. :-]”
LOL!!!
br.d
Like it takes a whole lot of “infinite understanding” to decree a whole lot of sin and evil! :-]
rhutchin
Well, if you know what “infinite” means, then you know it is a “whole lot.”
br.d
Yup that describes a “whole lot” about Calvinism.
But here is the interesting question:
Does the degree of sinfulness of the sin and the evilness of the evil come about because his decree?
OR
Does he decree specific sins and evils because of their maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness?
rhutchin
God’s decree makes sin certain but does not make it necessary.
br.d
Hmmmmm – an answer to a completely different question.
Since you know all there is to know about Calvin’s god – and he always does exactly what you say – I assumed you would have the answer this question also.
br.d writes, “Yup that describes a “whole lot” about Calvinism. ”
More importantly to this discussion, it describes a “whole lot” about God.
Then, “Hmmmmm – an answer to a completely different question.”
God’s decree makes sin certain but does not make it necessary. That answers your first question. The second question relates to God’s eternal plan and the Scriptures say nothing about God requiring “maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness.”
rhutchin
God’s decree makes sin certain but does not make it necessary. That answers your first question. The second question relates to God’s eternal plan and the Scriptures say nothing about God requiring “maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness.”
br.d
Oh the question wasn’t about “requiring” anything.
It was about whether Calvin’s god DECREES the maximum sinfulness of sin and the maximum evilness of evil – and whether that maximum sinfulness and evil is specifically from the DECREE – or whether he specifically DECREES it because of its maximum sinfulness and evil.
Since his decrees are “for his good pleasure” I wouldn’t anticipate it has anything to do with “requiring”
br.d writes, “It was about whether Calvin’s god DECREES the maximum sinfulness of sin and the maximum evilness of evil – and whether that maximum sinfulness and evil is specifically from the DECREE – or whether he specifically DECREES it because of its maximum sinfulness and evil.”
God does not decree “maximum sinfulness of sin and the maximum evilness of evil” nor does God decree sin because of its maximum sinfulness and evil.- if He did people would be utterly depraved and not just totally depraved.
Then, “Since his decrees are “for his good pleasure”
God’s decrees accomplish His will even to using evil as we see in the case of Joseph and Christ, As Isaiah said of Christ, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;….”
br.d
It was about whether Calvin’s god DECREES the maximum sinfulness of sin and the maximum evilness of evil – and whether that maximum sinfulness and evil is specifically from the DECREE – or whether he specifically DECREES it because of its maximum sinfulness and evil.”
rhutchin
God does not decree “maximum sinfulness of sin and the maximum evilness of evil” nor does God decree sin because of its maximum sinfulness and evil.- if He did people would be utterly depraved and not just totally depraved.
br.d
Well that would LOGICALLY resolve to Calvin’s god NOT decreeing those sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness.
And that would be a denial of the doctrine of decrees.
And Calvin tells us its -quote “for his good pleasure”
rhutchin
God’s decrees accomplish His will even to using evil as we see in the case of Joseph and Christ, As Isaiah said of Christ, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;….”
br.d
So since that which is determined is UNIVERSAL – that obviously includes sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness. (for his good pleasure of course)
br.d writes, “Well that would LOGICALLY resolve to Calvin’s god NOT decreeing those sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness.”
No. God can decree “those sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness” but this does not require that God decrees all sin because they ‘constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness.” By example, Joseph’s brothers first intended to kill Joseph but were limited by God to selling him. God decreed their actions but not their killing Joseph – killing would have been the maximum” sinfulness/evilness. The doctrine of decrees establishes God’s power to decree all events but does not require that He decree any particular event nor that such event be a “maximum.”.
Then, “So since that which is determined is UNIVERSAL – that obviously includes sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness. (for his good pleasure of course)”
I don’t see a basis for introducing “maximum.”
br.d
“Well that would LOGICALLY resolve to Calvin’s god NOT decreeing those sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness.”
rhutchin
No. God CAN decree “those sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness”
br.d
Here you say NO to my statement and then affirm it.
But you use the term CAN when the correct term is DOES.
rhutchin
but this does not require that God decrees all sin because they ‘constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness.”
br.d
We’ve already established – per Calvin – its -quote “for his good pleasure” so we already know “require” is not a factor.
And since that which is determined is UNIVERSAL – that obviously includes sins and evils which constitute “maximum” sinfulness/evilness. (for his good pleasure of course)”
rhutchin
I don’t see a basis for introducing “maximum.”
br.d
“maximum” and “minimum” are categories found in almost everything.
You have a “maximum” logical potential as well as a “minimum” logical potential.
Same categories exist with all of those sins and evils Calvin’s god DECREES.
In this case those that constitute “maximum” sinfulness and evilness.
br.d writes, “Here you say NO to my statement and then affirm it.
But you use the term CAN when the correct term is DOES.”
No. God can but He does not have to do so.
br.d
Here you say NO to my statement and then affirm it.
But you use the term CAN when the correct term is DOES.”
rhutchin
No. God can but He does not have to do so.
br.d
Sorry – if it comes to pass – (and we know “maximal” sins and evils do come to pass) then Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) DECREED it. Its just that simple!
br.d writes, “Sorry – if it comes to pass – (and we know “maximal” sins and evils do come to pass) then Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) DECREED it. Its just that simple!”
The issue is not whether “maximal” sins and evils do come to pass but whether all sins and evils are maximal as your original statement said, “It was about whether Calvin’s god DECREES the maximum sinfulness of sin and the maximum evilness of evil…”.
br.d
Sorry – if it comes to pass – (and we know “maximal” sins and evils do come to pass) then Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) DECREED it. Its just that simple!”
rhutchin
The issue is not whether “maximal” sins and evils do come to pass but whether ALL sins and evils are maximal as your original statement said,….
br.d
Nothing in the question stipulated ALL
Here is the original question
Does the degree of sinfulness of the sin and the evilness of the evil come about because his decree?
OR
Does he decree specific sins and evils because of their maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness?
br.d writes, “Here is the original question, “Does the degree of sinfulness…”
I guess you meant:
Here is the original question
Does the degree of sinfulness of some sin and the evilness of some evil come about because his decree?
OR
Does he decree specific sins and evils because of their maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness?’
Since God is sovereign and necessarily decrees all things, including all sin, regardless of degree, then all sin is by His decree regardless of degree. God would decree some sin to be the maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness (e.g., the crucifixion of Christ) in order to accomplish His purpose.
br.d
br.d writes, “Here is the original question, “Does the degree of sinfulness…”
I guess you meant:
Here is the original question
Does the degree of sinfulness of some sin and the evilness of some evil come about because his decree?
OR
Does he decree specific sins and evils because of their maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness?’
br.d
The original question was fine because it nowhere qualified ALL as you mistakenly thought it did.
rhutchin
Since God is sovereign and necessarily decrees all things, including all sin, regardless of degree, then all sin is by His decree regardless of degree.
br.d
Yes – “ALL” sin is by his decree – regardless of the degree of sinfulness and evil that he decrees.
But of course that is assumed and was therefore never the question.
rhutchin
God would decree some sin to be the maximum degree of sinfulness and evilness (e.g., the crucifixion of Christ) in order to accomplish His purpose.
br.d
Another point that is commonly stated by Calvinists – but that doesn’t answer the question either.
It really doesn’t matter – I don’t think Calvinism has a REAL answer for that specific question – so don’t worry about it.
But I did get a kick out of asking it! :-]
FOH writes, “They teach (clear, quotable on their web sites) that man is responsible for his sin even though God immutably, irresistibly, eternally ORDAINED that the person commit all of those sins.”
FOH, following in the footsteps of Jefferson, cut out the parts of the Scripture telling us about (1) Joseph and his brothers, (2) the Assyrians in Isaiah 10, and (3) the crucifixion of Christ.
Yea!
What they don’t tell you is whenever Calvin’s god immutably decrees man to sin:
1) He does not permit man to be or do otherwise.
2) He does not make any other options available to man.
3) He gives man the illusion that he permits man to refrain from that sin
4) He gives man the illusion that alternatives from that sin exist.
This THEOS has some REAL character issues!
Looks more like the Greek god Zeus to me.
Or even more-so like the Greek god Pan – because he is benevolent to some and malevolent to others!
GraceAdict writes, “From FundamentallyReformed website
“God holds creatures responsible for their sin, even when God was the One who foreordained that sin to happen, and used it for His ends.”
These guys actually believe this stuff…But of course God is not the author of evil (wink wink)”
We have examples in Scripture where “God holds creatures responsible for their sin, even when God was the One who foreordained that sin to happen, and used it for His ends.” They include (1) Joseph and his brothers, (2) the Assyrians in Isaiah 10, and (3) the crucifixion of Christ. In each case the perpetrators acted willingly and voluntarily so that God is not the author of sin even though He works all things according to the counsel of His will. Perhaps GA could actually deal with the Scriptures and tell us how they do not illustrate what Calvinists conclude.
rhutchin
We have examples in Scripture where “God holds creatures responsible for their sin, even when God was the One who foreordained that sin to happen
br.d
Firstly – the term “Foreordain” is deceptively misleading – in Calvinism the correct term is “DECREED”
And DECREED = DESIGNED
This makes all the difference.
In the NON-deterministic view of these scripture texts – the THEOS “ordains” human events without designing people to function as robots.
In Theological Determinism view of these scripture texts – (by virtue of divine determinism) people are designed to function as robots.
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism view of these scripture texts – (by virtue of divine determinism) people are designed to function as robots.”
Then, Calvinism and Theological Determinism are two different things. Under Calvinism, God has given man the ability to respond freely (as Calvinists define the term) to his environment with all future decisions of men known to God because of His infinite understanding.
br.d
In Theological Determinism view of these scripture texts – (by virtue of divine determinism) people are designed to function as robots.”
rhutchin
Then, Calvinism and Theological Determinism are two different things.
br.d
Sorry – what gives Calvinism its distinctiveness and makes it unique – is in fact its foundational corner-stone – Theological Determinism.
I’m afraid you’re saddled with it – and all of its LOGICAL consequences.
br,d writes, “Sorry – what gives Calvinism its distinctiveness and makes it unique – is in fact its foundational corner-stone – Theological Determinism.”
Except Calvinism makes man to be in the image of God and to willfully and voluntarily do as God has decreed without compulsion or coercion by God. Examples in the Scripture are the brothers of Joseph in the sale of Joseph, the crucifixion of Christ, the denial of Christ by Peter, etc.
If you insist that “In Theological Determinism view of these scripture texts – (by virtue of divine determinism) people are designed to function as robots.”” then Calvinism is not the same as Theological Determinism.
br,d
Sorry – what gives Calvinism its distinctiveness and makes it unique – is in fact its foundational corner-stone – Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
Except Calvinism makes man to be in the image of God and to willfully and voluntarily do as God has decreed without compulsion or coercion by God.
br.d
The No-Coersion argument is totally consistent with Theological Determinism – and a compatibilist view on free will.
And I’m sure you will say that Calvin’s god’s DECREES have no force! :-]
rhutchin
If you insist that “In Theological Determinism view of these scripture texts – (by virtue of divine determinism) people are designed to function as robots.”” then Calvinism is not the same as Theological Determinism.
br.d
We understand – Calvinists have a love-hate relationship with their system.
That’s why they’ve developed a highly evolved library of double-speak
And remember – I never conflate Theological Determinism with scripture.
That would turn scripture into double-speak.
And Calvinists are already head-long into that all by themselves.
br.d writes, “I never conflate Theological Determinism with scripture.”
This because Theological Determinism has nothing to do with Scripture. Calvinism requires that we hold to the Scripture.
br.d
I never conflate Theological Determinism with scripture.”
rhutchin
This because Theological Determinism has nothing to do with Scripture. Calvinism requires that we hold to the Scripture.
br.d
What a hoot!
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
While there is much debate about which prominent historical figures were Theological Determinists, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Gottfried Leibniz all….espouse the view….
br.d writes, “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
While there is much debate about which prominent historical figures were Theological Determinists, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Gottfried Leibniz all….espouse the view….”
It’s definition and yours appear to be different.
br.d writes, “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
While there is much debate about which prominent historical figures were Theological Determinists, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Gottfried Leibniz all….espouse the view….”
rhutchin
It’s definition and yours appear to be different.
br.d
Since all Christian Philosophy recognizes Calvinism is predicated on Theological Determinism – efforts to try and double-speak one’s way out of it is simply going to look silly and childish.
br.d writes, “Since all Christian Philosophy recognizes Calvinism is predicated on Theological Determinism – efforts to try and double-speak one’s way out of it is simply going to look silly and childish.”
As the Westminster Confession states it, “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”
So, by example, God decreed that Peter deny Christ and Peter willfully and voluntarily denied Christ. When you define Theological Determinism, you always seem to leave out the last part. If the last part – Peter’s willful and voluntary action – is excluded from Theological Determinism, then Theological Determinism does not describe fully the Calvinist system.
br.d
Since all Christian Philosophy recognizes Calvinism is predicated on Theological Determinism – efforts to try and double-speak one’s way out of it is simply going to look silly and childish.”
rhutchin
As the Westminster Confession states it, ….etc
br.d
Dr William Lutz – Double-Speak
-quote
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity. The incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is. It is the incongruity
between the word and the referent, between SEEM and BE.
br.d writes, “Dr William Lutz – Double-Speak
-quote
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity. The incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is. It is the incongruity
between the word and the referent, between SEEM and BE.”
Good. No incongruity, therefore no doublespeak. The Westminster Confession passes the test.
br.d
Dr William Lutz – Double-Speak
-quote
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity. The incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is. It is the incongruity
between the word and the referent, between SEEM and BE.”
rhutchin
Good. No incongruity, therefore no doublespeak. The Westminster Confession passes the test.
br.d
What a hoot! :-]
rh writes:
“Then, Calvinism and Theological Determinism are two different things. Under Calvinism, God has given man the ability to respond freely (as Calvinists define the term) to his environment with all future decisions of men known to God because of His infinite understanding.”
Of course, the key phrase is ‘as Calvinists define the term’. If one can redefine the meaning of words, define up as down, evil as good, controlled as free, then one can say pretty much anything without meaning what any normal person would.
One can redefine ‘elephant’ as ‘fruit fly’ and declare that elephants are flying all around the bananas. There is no end to the creative declarations one can make, as long as the meaning of words can be changed to suit one’s whims. This, I eventually discovered, is how my Calvinist pastor could preach for over a decade before I realized that he did not mean the same thing as what I – and most others – heard when he used ‘biblical’ terms. This is why I felt deceived and defrauded, and greatly grieved that I had allowed my children to be brainwashed all those years.
This is also why it is so important to point out, as is so frequently done here, how deceptive and duplicitous Calvin-speak is. Nor is it an accident. They deliberately use terms and phrases that are biblical and precious to the believer, and the naive never know that they have an entirely different meaning under the unique definitions of Calvinism.
Or go to the discussion page on Facebook for Sot101, and you will read story after story of people whose churches were stealthily taken over by a Calvinist pastor who was not up front about his beliefs and agenda. I, for one, do not view it as an accident. The deception is deliberate, as most people will reject Calvinism if confronted with its claims clearly. But more and more people are waking up to what is going on, so the deceptive tactics are unlikely to continue working.
Great post TS00!
As Dr. Flowers often says – “Calvinists have the same English language – but they have their own dictionary”
TS00 writes, “Of course, the key phrase is ‘as Calvinists define the term’.”
Calvinists define “free will” as an action taken willfully and voluntarily reflecting reason/motive. If you think this is wrong, then argue against this definition. To then write, “One can redefine ‘elephant’ as ‘fruit fly’ and declare that elephants are flying all around the bananas.” is disingenuous but typical of the way the non-Calvinist must argue against Calvinism.
rhutchin
Calvinists define “free will” as an action taken willfully and voluntarily reflecting reason/motive.
br.d
Reason/motive being attributes determined by factors beyond the creature’s control – as are all of the creature’s attributes.
As Calvin says:
-quote
“Since this CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the….plan of God” – (Institutes)
As I see the growing anti-Calvinist movement online, I am encouraged that people are beginning to engage with this theology, rather than be steamrolled into accepting it without question. Calvinism only works with the use of mind control and manipulation – it cannot stand up to honest examination. Most can see the absurdity of insisting that Calvi-god ordains the actions, instills the requisite desire, then blames man for doing the evil: ‘Bad boy, you did exactly what I ordained, motivated and irresistibly brought to pass!’ Even the most junior thinker recognizes the absurdity of such a claim. It really doesn’t matter how many steps one puts between Calvi-god and the action – if he ordains ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ then he has to accept the blame for any evil that comes to pass.
TS00 writes, “Calvinism only works with the use of mind control and manipulation – it cannot stand up to honest examination.”
Calvinism makes simple statements about God that even you can understand. They are:
1. God has infinite understanding;
2. God has a will that takes advantage of His infinite understanding;
3. God is sovereign over His creation;
4. God works all things in His creation according to the counsel of His will.
One application of God’s working is Romans 8, “God works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” The “all things” include both evil and good and God works all things for good in the lives of His elect. God is not to be blamed for the evil that occurs in the lives of His elect, but He is responsible for that evil as His purpose is to use that evil for good.
TS00
It really doesn’t matter how many steps one puts between Calvi-god and the action – if he ordains ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ then he has to accept the blame
br.d
Excellent point and excellent news!
The typical Calvi- escape mechanism is to argue:
Some attribute of the creature – caused some attribute of the creature – caused some attribute of the creature….
And on into infinite regress.
Anything to keep from following the causal chain back to its origin! :-]
br.d writes, “I understood the question – and on top of that understood its wording was not clearly Calvinistic”
Despite understanding the question, br.d still refuses to answer the question. Let’s ask it again.
If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
br.d
I understood the question – and on top of that understood its wording was not clearly Calvinistic
Here is the CALVINISTIC question:
“If Calvin’s god loves his creation why does he create the vast majority of them for eternal torment in the lake of fire”
I then provided the clearly Calvinistic answer for you – by paraphrasing Jon Edwards.
“The glory of evil is necessary to make the glory of good shine forth”
So not only did I answer the question – I also removed the misleading wording out of it
That’s a WIN WIN! :-]
So now its your turn – as a Calvinist is your answer in agreement with Jon Edwards?
br.d writes, “I then provided the clearly Calvinistic answer for you – by paraphrasing Jon Edwards.”
Just to be clear, are you saying that your position is the same as Edwards? Normally, you seem miffed at all things Calvinist and go to great lengths to avoid saying anything that you believe making me wonder if you believe anything at all.
Then, “So now its your turn – as a Calvinist is your answer in agreement with Jon Edwards?”
If Edwards is good enough for you, he is good enough for me. So, we agree on something Calvinistic.
br.d
I then provided the clearly Calvinistic answer for you – by paraphrasing Jon Edwards.
So now its your turn – as a Calvinist is your answer in agreement with Jon Edwards?”
rhutchin
Just to be clear, are you saying that your position is the same as Edwards?
br.d
Of course not!
That would make me a Gnostic / NeoPlatonist Christian.
rhutchin
If Edwards is good enough for you, he is good enough for me. So, we agree on something Calvinistic.
br.d
And since Edward’s answer isn’t good enough for me – is it still the case that Edwards answer is good enough for you?
Yea or Nay?
rhutchin: Just to be clear, are you saying that your position is the same as Edwards?”
br.d: “Of course not! That would make me a Gnostic / NeoPlatonist Christian.”
br.d still refuses to answer the question. Let’s ask it again.
If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
rhutchin
Just to be clear, are you saying that your position is the same as Edwards?”
br.d
Of course not! That would make me a Gnostic / NeoPlatonist Christian.”
rhutchin
br.d still refuses to answer the question. Let’s ask it again.
If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
br.d
With the specific wording of this question – it has two answers:
1) In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the reason Calvin’s god doesn’t ensure every person saved – even though the god of scripture is said to love every – is because Calvin’s god – for his good pleasure – chose to design the vast majority of the human race for eternal torment in the lake of fire. Since that is the case – one has to derive his own GUESS about what kind of “love” that is.
2) In IN-determinism (Non-Calvinism) what the THEOS does is to set life and death before people. And he does so such that both life and death both exist as REAL options both being TRULY available to people. And the THEOS “merely” permits people to choose between those options. In this view there is no “Enunciated” (i.e. benevolent) along with its Gnostic DUALISM – a “SECRET” malevolent will.
I won’t bother to ask you for an answer because I already know the answer will be couched in exculpatory language which I’ve already seen a thousand times.
br.d writes, “1) In Theological Determinism…”
This is not br.d’s position so he is evading the issue.
Then, “2) In IN-determinism (Non-Calvinism) what the THEOS does is to set life and death before people.”
br.d continues to avoid answering the question. Let’s ask it one more time. If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
br.d
2) In IN-determinism (Non-Calvinism) what the THEOS does is to set life and death before people.”
rhutchin
br.d continues to avoid answering the question. Let’s ask it one more time. If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
br.d
Obviously you’re not getting the answer you want – so you keep asking the same question over and over as if you didn’t’ get an answer.
I think we’ve seen this before
br.d writes, “Obviously you’re not getting the answer you want – so you keep asking the same question over and over as if you didn’t’ get an answer.”
Br.d continues to avoid giving an answer. He will attempt a Calvinist answer and then say that he disavows the Calvinist answer. So, let’s give try another chance to give his answer. If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?
br.d
Obviously you’re not getting the answer you want – so you keep asking the same question over and over as if you didn’t’ get an answer.”
rhutchin
Br.d continues to avoid giving an answer……So, let’s give try another chance to give his answer….
br.d
I’ll bet you’re mother called you a willful child when you were young! :-]
br.d writes, “I’ll bet you’re mother called you a willful child when you were young!”
br.d is getting upset but it is still not an answer. It is a simple question, so let’s ask it again, If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?”
br.d
I’ll bet you’re mother called you a willful child when you were young!”
rhutchin
br.d is getting upset
br.d
Woow!
Oh yes I forgot that attribute of “projection” (i.e., reverse attribution).
However I don’t think that attribute by itself is directly related to the willful child attribute..
They both just happen to be consistent! :-]
br.d writes, “Woow!
Oh yes I forgot that attribute of “projection” (i.e., reverse attribution).
However I don’t think that attribute by itself is directly related to the willful child attribute..”
Still no attempt to answer the question. So, let’s try one more time. If, “God so loved each and every person that He gave His only begotten Son,…” why doesn’t God ensure each and every person is saved?”
Of course br.d has been around these parts to know that is not a sincere question. You know darn well the non-Calvinists’ explanation for why God neither compels any man to be saved, nor destines any man to be lost. It is the ultimate dividing line between Calvinists and most others – it was God’s sovereign choice to grant men a choice. But you know that.
TS00 writes, “– it was God’s sovereign choice to grant men a choice. But you know that.”
Actually, the issue is not that God grants people a choice but whether God grants all people equal choice – that is what I know. God granted His elect a choice that enabled them to come to salvation while not granting the reprobate the same choice. Had God granted all people an equal choice either all would come to salvation or all would reject salvation.
RH writes — “Had God granted all people an equal choice either all would come to salvation or all would reject salvation.”
GA – I believe you have revealed the stumbling stone upon which you continue to stumble. Your statement above is the foundational assumption that you embrace and evaluate every answer through that lens. However that lens is NO WHERE stated in the BIBLE you have brought an extra-biblical assumption into the debate and that assumption has NO scripture whatsover to back it up. You need to rid yourself of these false assumption in order to see what scripture is actually saying. While you hold fast to this error you CANNOT embrace the Truth… You have identified your own error…”Had God granted all people an equal choice either all would come to salvation or all would reject salvation.” Is not a biblical truth…it is at best man-made.
Some of rhutchin’s pronouncements make me think of a person who inserts a quarter into his left ear – and out pops one of his crazy statements. Of course pronounced without blinking. :-]
rh : “Had God granted all people an equal choice either all would come to salvation or all would reject salvation.”
GA: “Is not a biblical truth…it is at best man-made.”
You are correct, GA. Not only is it not a biblical truth, it is bad logic and unsupported by common experience. There is absolutely nothing that requires different people who have a free choice to all make the same choice. In fact, I’m guessing the odds are very much against it. But rh sees the world as mechanistic, and people are robots who have only one ‘best’ choice which all must make.
I’m not sure if rh has no family or friends, or what; if one hangs around a few different people one will quickly see how unique each is. I’ve five young adult children, and the chances of them making the same exact choices in any situation are very slim, in spite of having the same upbringing by the same parents. I have known many God-fearing people in my life, yet none of them have lived their lives exactly like any other.
The diversity of people God has created leads me to believe that God is not after mechanical look alikes. Even when we are all Christlike in our love for God and man, the expression of such will be unique to the individual. Otherwise, God could have made one lapdog human who performed exactly as desired and avoided all of the drama.
TS00 “Otherwise, God could have made one lapdog human who performed exactly as desired and avoided all of the drama.”
Agreed
Calvinism is so full of faulty assumptions such as the one we are discussing. Also the assumption of “gnostic dualism” that evil is co-equal and co-necessary in order for God to be properly glorified. Under that gnostic assumption one must pity the eternal God who in all of eternity past existed without evil being manifest, HIS evil side must have been so frustrated. The “Gnostic Calvi-god” in eternity past was frustrated about not expressing His evil side so He had to make creatures, designed, motivated and propelled by HIM to do evil, so that now these acts of evil could bring the “Gnostic Calvi-god” the glory due his name; evil being co-equal and co-necessary and also co-contributors to God’s Glory. .
RH argues that the Calvi-system upholds free will BUT In the Calvi-system at what point does man actually have a free choice? The answer is NEVER.
Why? Because in eternity past Billions and Billions of years ago before there was any man or even the earth the Calvi-god designed what each man would be, just as HE wanted him, doing exactly everything that HE wanted him to do, thinking the exact thoughts and only the thoughts that HE designed and wanted him to think, then in time and space the “Gnostic Calvi-god” created this pre-designed, pre-programmed man for the evil that HE dreamed up and HE irresistibly designed him to do. Every evil thought or deed ever done came about this way.
Plus this man at no point from eternity past to present had any other option but the evil designed and decreed by HIS creator. Everything man or satan has ever done is, in 100% harmony with God’s desires and DECREES and it is said to bring HIM maximum Glory. The reason everything evil happens is that evil Brings HIM the maximum Glory. (What a clever lie of the devil)
If it happened ie (Hitler or the Child rapist) every single act was dreamed up first by the “Gnostic Calvi-god” in eternity past, then the person who would do the act was irresistibly designed for that purpose.
The Calvi-god chose him to do that before he had ever done anything good or bad, before he existed he was designed and chosen for that deed. The chosen one for this evil deed never had AN option and it was irresistibly handed to him to do that act for the Glory of “Gnostic Calvi-god”.
But then to make it sound Biblical we must pound the pulpit and say with great emphasis: “God, however, is not the author of evil He is Holy, we must not judge God according to our standards of right and wrong, Sovereign God can do whatever He pleases we simply bow before him and worship. I am humble enough to admit this is a hard saying and I do not know how it all fits together but that is no reason to reject this precious truth, it is one the mysteries of God.”
Calvinist think that statements like this exonerate themselves and absolve them of Blasphemy.
What they do is no small evil for they speak Evil of our Holy, Loving God. The God of Truth and Light… God is light in HIM there is no darkness at all. The systematic of Calvinism Blasphemes God, it does NOT honor God, it dishonors God.
Calvin speaks evil of our God and modern day Calvinist continue the tradition
David J. Engelsma
The call in the preaching comes also to many reprobates, but God’s “design” with the call to them is that it be to them a savour of death and the ground of worse condemnation. Calvin does not regard the external call of the gospel as grace to all hearers or as an expression of God’s sincere desire to save all.
…Those, therefore, whom He has created for dishonour during life and destruction at death, that they may be vessels of wrath and examples of severity, in bringing to their doom, He at one time deprives of the means of hearing His word, at another by the preaching of it blinds and stupefies them the more.9
So far from being grace to the reprobate, the preaching of the gospel is a judgment against them, for by the preaching God blinds and stupefies them. “God sends His word to many whose blindness He is pleased to aggravate.”10
He directs His voice to them, but it is that they may turn a deafer ear; He kindles a light, but it is that they may be more stupid; He employs a remedy, but it is that they may not be cured.11 End Quote
With a theology like that it is no wonder that Calvin had his hand in the torture and killing of true believers. Calvin appears to have never repented of his evil deeds so can we safely assume by Calvin’s own standard that he was never a true believer? That his faith was a false faith a human faith… If we are to follow TULIP the Calvinist would have to affirm that one going to his grave never repenting of such hideous public evil deeds must never have been saved in the first place but he only had an outward appearance? What do you think?
GraceAdict writes, ‘Calvinism is so full of faulty assumptions…Also the assumption of “gnostic dualism” that evil is co-equal and co-necessary in order for God to be properly glorified.”
This is not an assumption under Calvinism. Under Calvinism, God is sovereign and everyone and everything is subordinate to Him.
RH ” This is not an assumption under Calvinism. Under Calvinism, God is sovereign and everyone and everything is subordinate to Him.”
If that were the whole truth and nothing but the truth then we would be in agreement… But that is a half truth under Calvinism. Sovereign means divine determinism… in Calvinist terms you smuggle in additional false assumptions, like God must be the Author of Evil (while not being the author of evil) in order for Him to be Sovereign. Half truths and New definitions for terms allows the Calvinist to sound biblical while meaning something completely different.
GraceAdcit writes, “Sovereign means divine determinism… in Calvinist terms you smuggle in additional false assumptions,…”
Because God rules over His creation and does so as sovereign, nothing escapes His rule – He is aware of everything that happens , down to every shiver of every atom, and He rules over this. Necessarily, nothing can happen that God does not determine by His action.
So, name one thing, event, etc that God does not rule over and determine.
RH claims God is the Cause of ALL evil..
“So, name one thing, event, etc that God does not rule over and determine.”
GA
1Jn 1:5 …God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. (There is a lot of Darkness that God does NOT claim as coming from Him – He allows it because He has created a world where there is Free-will but that is NOT the same as what you attribute to God.)
Do Not be Deceived Brothers
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.
GOD does not claim this evil as His own, or coming from HIM or being Decreed by HIM. However Calvinism does…It profanes God’s Holy name. It makes Satan and the Flesh simply another manifestation of the Gnostic God of Calvinism.
GraceAdict writes, “1Jn 1:5 …God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. (There is a lot of Darkness that God does NOT claim as coming from Him – He allows it because He has created a world where there is Free-will but that is NOT the same as what you attribute to God.)”
God rules over the darkness and no darkness would exist without God decreeing (or determining) that it exist. Not a good example.
Then, “Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. ”
God rules the person and understands all his desires. God can affect a person’s desires (God opened the heart of Lydia) but can do nothing to change a person’s desires. In each case, God rules the situation and determines the outcome. Not a good example.
Then, “GOD does not claim this evil as His own, or coming from HIM or being Decreed by HIM.”
Only God can decree evil, because evil cannot exist unless God decree it. When God said, “Thou shalt not…” He decreed what was evil. When God watched as Cain killed Abel and did nothing, He decreed Abel’s death – an evil act. Nothing can happen except by God’s decree as God rules everything and nothing proceeds except by God’s decree..
Try again, Name one thing, event, etc that God does not rule over and determine (or decree).
RH – You are a very smart person. But the way you take the WORD of God and change it to mean just the opposite of what it says is down right scary. I know Calvin as a lawyer had this ability as well…so you are following in the steps of your mentor that is clear…but is there no scripture that you won’t twist to mean just the opposite of what it says just so it fits with your man-made system?
I think Jesus’ words to the Pharisees and the scribes would be appropriate:
Mar 7:7-9 …teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
GraceAdict writes, “…you take the WORD of God and change it to mean just the opposite of what it says is down right scary….”
Then, argue the case from those Scriptures and make sure you are not giving your own private interpretation to the Word.
GraceAdict writes, “RH argues that the Calvi-system upholds free will BUT In the Calvi-system at what point does man actually have a free choice? The answer is NEVER. Why? Because…”
God has infinite understanding and by that infinite understanding God can know all effects of all causes, including the reasons and motives of people, before those causes affect change. God is the first cause of His creation and God’s understanding of His creation is infinite.
RH – Conflates omniscience with Causation. These word tricks and redefining of words are cute but this is where the error in doctrine enters your system.
GraceAdict writes, “RH – Conflates omniscience with Causation.”
Absent an argument, GA defers to false claims.
GraceAdict writes, “RH argues that the Calvi-system upholds free will BUT In the Calvi-system at what point does man actually have a free choice? The answer is NEVER. Why? Because…”
br.d
I think what GraceAdict is arguing here is that such a choice is not GENUINELY free.
It being the case – in Theological Determinism – the creature is ONLY free to be/do what the THEOS determines.
And the creature has NO SAY in what the THEOS determines.
That in fact is the LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE of Theological Determinism – with or without compatibilistic free-will.
And the degree of infinite knowledge of the THEOS in no way changes that attribute of creaturely freedom.
Calvinists deflect to “infinite knowledge” as a strategy to INFER the THEOS knows by OBSERVATION (rather than by decree) what the creature would determine – and then simply determines that.
But it should be obvious – that strategy is simply designed to eliminate culpability from the THEOS.
br.d writes, “I think what GraceAdict is arguing here is that such a choice is not GENUINELY free.”
What does, “genuinely,” free mean? That God cannot understand everything about a person and from that understanding knows the decisions a person will make before he makes them?
Then, “It being the case – in Theological Determinism – the creature is ONLY free to be/do what the THEOS determines.
And the creature has NO SAY in what the THEOS determines.”
Again, just because God understands the person, why does this mean that a person exercises no say in his decisions.
Then, “Calvinists deflect to “infinite knowledge” as a strategy to INFER the THEOS knows by OBSERVATION (rather than by decree) what the creature would determine – and then simply determines that.”
This comes out of the vivid imagination of br.d and has no resemblance to reality.
Once again, God has an infinite understanding of His creation, and this understanding is used by His will so that God works (or decrees) all things according to the counsel of His will.
br.d
I think what GraceAdict is arguing here is that such a choice is not GENUINELY free.”
rhutchin
What does, “genuinely,” free mean? That God cannot understand everything about a person and from that understanding knows the decisions a person will make before he makes them?
br.d
Well if a THEOS determines you to commit a hideous sin tomorrow morning at 10AM
And you are NOT FREE to refrain from committing that sin.
Then some people would define that as NOT GENUINE freedom.
Then, “It being the case – in Theological Determinism – the creature is ONLY free to be/do what the THEOS determines.
And the creature has NO SAY in what the THEOS determines.”
rhutchin
Again, just because God understands the person, why does this mean that a person exercises no say in his decisions.
br.d
We understand your need to make Determinism *APPEAR* as IN-deterministic as possible.
In any way make Calvinism APPEAR to simulation of Libertarian Free-dome as much as you can.
But as the Calvinist confessions state it:
-quote
His decree cannot depend upon anything in the future or anything outside of Himself.
On a practical level – the fact that the person doesn’t exist when the determination is made – makes it the case the person has no say in that determination.
Additionally- Calvin says the decree is not based on anything having to do with the state of nature.
-quote
For it did not take place by reason of NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.
Then, “Calvinists deflect to “infinite knowledge” as a strategy to INFER the THEOS knows by OBSERVATION (rather than by decree) what the creature would determine – and then simply determines that.”
rhutchin
This comes out of the vivid imagination of br.d and has no resemblance to reality.
Once again, God has an infinite understanding of His creation, and this understanding is used by His will so that God works (or decrees) all things according to the counsel of His will.
br.d
As always – I’m happy to let SOT101 readers discern and make up their own minds as to where the TRUTH is vs the DOUBLE-SPEAK. :-]
br.d writes, “Well if a THEOS determines you to commit a hideous sin tomorrow morning at 10AM”
That determination reflects God’s understanding of the factors that result in a person making a decision. God’s determination is not to interfere with those factors thereby providing for natural events to play out naturally. As God decides that He will not be involved in the person’s thinking or decisionmaking, how does His understanding and knowledge of a person’s future decision remove the freedom of the individual?
Then, “We understand your need to make Determinism *APPEAR* as IN-deterministic as possible.”
Nope – deterministic it is.
Then, “On a practical level – the fact that the person doesn’t exist when the determination is made – makes it the case the person has no say in that determination.”
Of course, the person is involved as the determined events appear in time when the person does exist. God understands the events that are to occur and knows what will happen but does not coerce the known outcome. This provides for the person to act as God understand that he will act and he acts willfully and voluntarily.
Then, “Additionally- Calvin says the decree is not based on anything having to do with the state of nature.
-quote – “For it did not take place by reason of NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.”
It was not by reason of nature but by violation of God’s command, “Do not eat the fruit,” that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.
br.d
Well if a THEOS determines you to commit a hideous sin tomorrow morning at 10AM then you are NOT FREE to refrain from committing that sin at 10AM tomorrow morning – which means you have no say in the matter of NOT committing that sin.
rhutchin
That determination reflects God’s understanding of the factors that result in a person making a decision.
br.d
Those factors being neurological impulses that appear in your brain – which he AUTHORED. If he doesn’t have understanding of what he AUTHORS he’s in trouble :-]
rhutchin
God’s determination is not to interfere with those factors thereby providing for natural events to play out naturally.
br.d
There goes Calvin’s god again – AUTHORING events for himself to interfere in (or not) – what a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
As God decides that He will not be involved in the person’s thinking or decisionmaking,
br.d
rhutchin – we understand you’re trying to make Calvinism *APPEAR* as IN-deterministic as possible.
Creating a THEOS that decides to not be involved in a person’s thinking – when he is REALLY the AUTHOR of every neurological impulse.
rhutchin
Nope – deterministi.d
br.d
I won’t even bother to respond to such silliness.
And – on a practical level – the fact that the person doesn’t exist when the determination is made – makes it the case the person has no say in that determination.”
rhutchin
God understands the events that are to occur and knows what will happen but does not coerce the known outcome. This provides for the person to act as God understand that he will act and he acts willfully and voluntarily.
br.d
Like I said – if you were to make such a statement in Calvin’s Geneva – he would have your tongue run through with a hot iron.
Additionally- Calvin says the decree is not based on anything having to do with the state of nature.
John Calvin
-quote –
“For it did not take place by reason of NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.”
rhutchin
It was not by reason of nature but by violation of God’s command, “Do not eat the fruit,” that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.
br.d
1) Not by reason of NATURE that they did what they did – but by reason of Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
2) The creature is ALWAYS in TOTAL OBEDIENCE to Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
You’re NON-Calvinism Calvinism is pretty funny these days! :-]
rhutchin
That determination reflects God’s understanding of the factors that result in a person making a decision.
br.d
Understanding of things *AS-IF* he didn’t AUTHOR those very things!
This is an excellent example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern
Theological Determinism *AS-IF* IN-determinism
“Mere” Permission doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
Foreknowledge via observation doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
And Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of all things *AS-IF* he isn’t
True *AS-IF* False
False *AS-IF* True
Why everyone wouldn’t want to embrace Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking – is a mystery! :-]
Thanks BR.D
Some times I think RH is starting to see the light and agree that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is not how God put together this world BUT then it becomes obvious he is just trying to hide his true beliefs behind other slippery terms and He is doing the “AS IF” jig again. Thanks for exposing the double speak that is constantly at play.
br.d and GA,
No matter how many times you catch RH saying contradictory statements it will not matter.
He just starts the next post stone-faced as if nothing was said. Even for this post he might say “Why doesn’t FOH make his case…..”
But boys….that’s the point. You have both made a case many, many times over. But that does not count for him. Only agreement with him counts. Only Calvinism counts (but not that really, since he constantly disagrees with that Calvin can be quoted to say).
But it is a no-win situation…. and I wish someone had told me a year ago when I started with a flurry to respond to him. I will not engage with him now. Too many other things to do in life!
I will just add here (as I have said before) that I work with believers from all backgrounds. We have agreed to disagree on certain points. I do not get that feeling from RH. I only get the “my way or the highway” feeling ….. or more like Calvin’s burn-them-on-green-wood-fires feeling. It’s too bad….and I dont wanna engage.
I may see some of the posts (as I did with this one) but the constant as-if-both-are-true, merry-go-round is a waste of time.
They will take little shots across the bow “FOH was sleeping in class” or “Why can’t TS00 seem to make his case….” but they never answer my simple questions:
Can you do anything that is not the will of God?
Is everything you do exactly what God wants you to do?
Great post FOH!
And I’ve always appreciated the power of your two questions (at the end of your last post)
It would be great if we had one single post that answers in TRUTH.
Then we could simply respond to rhutchins “constant as-if-both-are-true, merry-go-round” posts by posting that link.
I’ll see if I can think of something.
FOH: “Can you do anything that is not the will of God? Is everything you do exactly what God wants you to do?”
These are great questions but what scares me about Consistent Calvinism is that they actually believe: “If it happened then that is proof that it really was what God wanted, it was His will” “When anything happens that becomes 100% proof that this thing was God’s will”
This makes God the author of evil rapes, Hitler’s deeds, even Satan’s evil deeds. It profanes the Holy name of God, while pretending to Glory God.
Under Calvinism
“If it happened that is proof that it is God’s will and only what is God’s will happens here on earth 100% of the time” I wonder what their heaven looks like, where God’s will is also done 100% of the time? Not any different than here and now.
FOH writes, “they never answer my simple questions:
Can you do anything that is not the will of God?
Is everything you do exactly what God wants you to do?”
People can disobey God’s will expressed in His laws.
People cannot disobey His will as expressed in His omnipotent decisions.
Everything people do is exactly what God wants them to do even to disobeying His laws
rhutchin
People can disobey God’s will expressed in His laws.
People cannot disobey His will as expressed in His omnipotent decisions.
Everything people do is exactly what God wants them to do even to disobeying His laws
br,d
TRUE!
So we have the following:
1) It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to disobey Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
2) Where Calvin’s gods “Enunciated” will is the direct opposite of his SECRET will – it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to obey his “Enunciated” will.
3) Since disobeying the SECRET will is NEVER PERMITTED – then it follows – when it is in direct opposition to his “Enunciated” will – by default he does NOT PERMIT obedience to his “Enunciated” will. (rule of logic – transference to the consequence)
rh writes:
“People can disobey God’s will expressed in His laws.
People cannot disobey His will as expressed in His omnipotent decisions.
Everything people do is exactly what God wants them to do even to disobeying His laws.”
Wow, can you even imagine worshiping such a God? One who expresses one will in his law, but omnipotently decrees the opposite to actually happen. Everything people do is exactly what God wants. So much for the verse rh recently quoted:
“And God said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth….'”
One simply cannot make a logical description of God’s words and actions in the great flood if people only do exactly what God wants them to do. What would be the reason for God approving of Noah’s righteousness, were it only what God had irresistibly ordained? What would be the reason for God’s wrath over the violence which filled the earth, if that was exactly what God ordaiined? What would be the reason for the great flood which destroyed nearly all living beings, if all had only done exactly what God wanted?
The only response, and it is not an acceptable one in my opinion, is to suggest that God orchestrated this whole debacle for a show. The poor masses who were decreed to wreak violence upon the earth were destined for destruction – they had no other choice; yet God went through the pretense of being angry at them for doing what he had ordained. Noah, who really deserved no accolades, was simply the man God chose to behave righteously, so he could have someone to bestow his ‘grace’ upon.
This, of course, is repeated throughout all of the biblical narratives. If all is as God ordained, decreed and wants, then all his talk of sin, wrath, people doing what he neither wanted nor even thought of, etc. is simply hogwash. You might as well throw your bible away, as God is so dishonest and dissembling it means virtually nothing.
If God not merely foresaw – as most Christians would affirm – but foreordained whatsoever would come to pass, then he is a monstrous tyrant who cruelly punishes people who are nothing more than helpless puppets, following a script that was written before they were ever born.
So, yeah, when Calvinists play semantic games to try and hide the less palatable aspects of their theological system, most of us would say they believe one thing, but live ‘as if’ another is so.
TS00
So, yeah, when Calvinists play semantic games to try and hide the less palatable aspects of their theological system, most of us would say they believe one thing, but live ‘as if’ another is so.
br.d
So True!!
I think what we see is someone who has inadvertently painted himself in a corner and doesn’t have away of escape other than to try to bluff his way out.
Thanks GraceAdict!
I like that “The AS-IF Jig”
I also call it Calvinism’s 2-step dance routine :-]
GraceAdict writes, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism is not how God put together this world”
– Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
– Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
– Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,…”
– And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth….”
– God said to Jacob: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.”
– “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
– A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
– The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
– God makes nations great, and destroys them; He enlarges nations, and guides them.
– God takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth, And makes them wander in a pathless wilderness.
– God works all things according to the counsel of His will…
etc. etc
So, what do you call it?
rhutchin
So, what do you call it?
br.d
Dr. William Lutz on Double-Speak
-quote
“Double-Speak is the incongruity between what is said and what is NOT said”
In other words – what something is CALLED vs what something IS.
The Calvinist has no problem CALLING his theology *Universal* Divine Causal Determinism.
The tap-dance comes into play in regard to how UNIVERSAL that determinism is for him.
Take the sum total of things determined
And sub-tract *ALL* from it (the number of things determined by the THEOS)
How many things do you have left over for the creature to determine?
If in fact it is UNIVERSAL – then it follows the answer is zero.
And this is where we see every Calvinist do his tap-dance.
At least he’s truthful enough to *CALL* it universal
GraceAdict writes, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism is not how God put together this world”
– Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
– Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
– Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,…”
– And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth….”
– God said to Jacob: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.”
– “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
– A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
– The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
– God makes nations great, and destroys them; He enlarges nations, and guides them.
– God takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth, And makes them wander in a pathless wilderness.
– God works all things according to the counsel of His will…
etc. etc
So, what do you call it?
br.d responded, “In other words – what something is CALLED vs what something IS.”
Fine. How about telling us what it is?
br.d
“In other words – what something is CALLED vs what something IS.”
rhutchin
Fine. How about telling us what it is?
br.d
UNIVERSAL which means *ALL* without exception
Take the sum of all things determined
Subtract *ALL* from it (the number determined by the THEOS)
How many things are there left over for the creature to determine?
br.d: “In other words – what something is CALLED vs what something IS.”
rhutchin: “Fine. How about telling us what it is?”
br.d: “UNIVERSAL which means *ALL* without exception”
So, you define ““Universal Divine Causal Determinism” by defining, “UNIVERSAL” to mean “*ALL* without exception.” Isn’t there more to it than that given that the Scriptures say::
– Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
– Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
– Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,…”
– And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth….”
– God said to Jacob: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.”
– “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
– A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
– The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
– God makes nations great, and destroys them; He enlarges nations, and guides them.
– God takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth, And makes them wander in a pathless wilderness.
– God works all things according to the counsel of His will…
etc. etc
To this, GraceAdict says, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism is not how God put together this world.” What is the point your are trying to make in this discussion?
br.d
In other words – what something is CALLED vs what something IS.”
rhutchin
Fine. How about telling us what it is?”
br.d
UNIVERSAL which means *ALL* without exception – so as I said multiple times and you simply ignored:
Take the sum total of things determined
And sub-tract *ALL* from it (the number of things determined by the THEOS)
How many things do you have left over for the creature to determine?
Because it is defined as UNIVERSAL – it follows the answer is zero.
That is your answer.
But you will make like you didn’t get one of course! :-]
br.d writes, ‘Understanding of things *AS-IF* he didn’t AUTHOR those very things!”
Understanding of things as the basis for God authoring those very things! Without understanding, there is no authoring.
RH : “Understanding of things as the basis for God authoring those very things! Without understanding, there is no authoring.”
GA: For my clarity on what you are saying are you saying: “God knows what a rapist will do so then God authors what that rapist will do?” “God knows what Satan will do so then God Authors what satan will do?” I honestly think this is what you are saying can you confirm?
GraceAdict writes, ““God knows what a rapist will do so then God authors what that rapist will do?””
Let’s use an example in present time. God is present when a rapist first desires to rape and then assaults a woman and rapes her. God had the power to redirect the thoughts of the rapist before the rape and to send police to stop the rapist before the rape. God did not do this. Thus, God, because He had power to prevent the rape and did not do so, is said to be the author of the rape. By His understanding, God knew these events would play out even in eternity past and even this is part of the plan He conceived in eternity past. IF not, then God has limited understanding and is not omnipotent.
rhutchin
Let’s use an example in present time.
br.d
I like the example of the private asking the general “Permission to speak freely sir”
In UNIVERSAL divine causal determinism we have (act 1 – scene 3):
The general (role played by Calvin’s god) asks the private to tell him X
Then the general DETERMINES the private will say “Permission to speak freely sir”
Then the general speaks his part and says “Permission granted”
Then the general DETERMINES what the private will say.
And the whole thing is choreographed from start to finish.
br.d writes, ‘In UNIVERSAL divine causal determinism we have (act 1 – scene 3):
…
And the whole thing is choreographed from start to finish.”
Of course, Calvin would say that the words determined by God to be spoken by the person are attributed fully to the person who is then responsible for those words for God does not coerce those words to be spoken.
br.d writes, ‘In UNIVERSAL divine causal determinism we have (act 1 – scene 3):
…
And the whole thing is choreographed from start to finish.”
rhutchin
Of course, Calvin would say that the words determined by God to be spoken by the person are attributed fully to the person who is then responsible for those words for God does not coerce those words to be spoken.
br.d
A robot is not coerced by its program – it just can’t do otherwise
And everyone knows – even when a person’s every neurological impulse is meticulously choreographed within a script – that person is still responsible for those impulses and not the writer of the script :-]
br.d writes, “A robot is not coerced by its program – it just can’t do otherwise.”
LOL!!! A robot does exactly what it is programmed to do – – it just can’t do otherwise.” It doesn’t need to be coerced because it does not want to do otherwise. So, what’s your point?
Then, ‘And everyone knows – even when a person’s every neurological impulse is meticulously choreographed within a script – that person is still responsible for those impulses and not the writer of the script ”
Of course. God’s understanding of His creation is perfect, so He can know how a person will behave into the future. That which a person does by necessity is properly attributed to the person. If a person views pornography day and night and then goes out and rapes a child, God understands perfectly what is happening in the person’s mind, and the person is totally responsible for his behavior.
br.d
A robot is not coerced by its program – it just can’t do otherwise.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! A robot does exactly what it is programmed to do – – it just can’t do otherwise.” It doesn’t need to be coerced because it does not want to do otherwise. So, what’s your point?
br.d
Same functionality in Calvinism
The creature can’t “want” otherwise – because it is designed to “want” what it is predestined to “want”.
But I already know what your next move is.
Some attribute of the secondary means – caused some attribute of the secondary means – caused some attribute of the secondary means – and on into infinite regress.
Nice little exculpatory argument designed to keep one from tracing-back up determinisms causal chain. :-]
br.d
Understanding of things *AS-IF* he didn’t AUTHOR those very things!”
rhutchin
Understanding of things as the basis for God authoring those very things! Without understanding, there is no authoring.
br.d
Thankfully – we are able to discern Calvinism’s *AS-IF* language patterns :-]
br.d writes, “Thankfully – we are able to discern Calvinism’s *AS-IF* language patterns ”
Fortunately, br.d cannot explain what he is talking about and no one else understands him.
br.d
“Thankfully – we are able to discern Calvinism’s *AS-IF* language patterns ”
rhutchin
Fortunately, br.d cannot explain what he is talking about and no one else understands him.
br.d
I’ll bet if you ask the others what Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern is – they will know.
But then you’ll simply say they also don’t understand it
We know a lot of Calvinist thinking patterns :-]
br.d writes, “I’ll bet if you ask the others what Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern is – they will know.”
OK. How about it – FOH, TS00, Brian and all those lurking about. Explain what br.d means by “Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.”
One example of AS IF would be:
Universal Divine Causal Determinism…This is at the bottom of what Calvinism teaches, this is their foundation. BUT since this is unliveable Calvin told his followers they must live *AS IF* nothing was determined, since they don’t know what is determined.
X is true but X is unliveable so live AS IF x is false.
GraceAdict writes, “BUT since this is unliveable Calvin told his followers they must live *AS IF* nothing was determined, since they don’t know what is determined.”
Yes. That’s pretty much the only example br.d uses. That is just a common sense approach for young believers until they mature and grasp the notion that they can trust God in every situation because He has the future under control. I kinda thought he meant something more than that. A lot of believers have a hard time living as if God has everything under control including Calvinists.
But that is pretty BIG wouldn’t you agree?…. Absolutely everything is placed under that umbrella. Universal Divine Meticulous Determinism of every thing. Even if you are trusting Him or Not, that lack of Trust is Determined by God FOR you.
GraceAdict writes,”Absolutely everything is placed under that umbrella. Universal Divine Meticulous Determinism of every thing.”
No. The only thing in view here is the believers ability to trust God to have control over everything. However, br.d has said:
“Theological Determinism *AS-IF* IN-determinism
“Mere” Permission doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
Foreknowledge via observation doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
And Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of all things *AS-IF* he isn’t
True *AS-IF* False
False *AS-IF* True”
Seems like br.d means more than you ascribe to him. However, if you can explain what he means, that would be pretty neat.
rhutchin
“Theological Determinism *AS-IF* IN-determinism
“Mere” Permission doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
Foreknowledge via observation doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
And Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of all things *AS-IF* he isn’t
True *AS-IF* False
False *AS-IF* True”
Seems like br.d means more than you ascribe to him. However, if you can explain what he means, that would be pretty neat.
br.d
Nope – br.d means exactly the same thing in every one of these cases.
And GraceAdict is correct – Calvin’s teaching of living/thinking *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE – is the underlying principle of them all.
rhutchin
That is just a common sense approach for young believers until they mature and grasp the notion that they can TRUST God in every situation because He has the future under control
br.d
Funny Calvin didn’t preface this as directed towards “young believers”
And what is this maturing believer supposed to TRUSTING Calvin’s god for?
Here are a few things Calvin teaches one to trust Calvin’s god for:
– He can trust Calvin’s god for designing the vast majority if humanity for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
– He can trust Calvin’s god to speak his “Enunciated” will through scripture – while knowing the SECRET will may be the exact opposite – and his end – eternal torment in the lake of fire
– He can trust Calvin’s god to create him as one of the -quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of those whom salvation is held out as a savor of greater condemnation – whom Calvin’s god will strike with greater blindness – and then throw in the lake of fire.
There are way to many things a maturing Calvinist can learn to trust Calvin’s god for!
Even though most of them involve the lake of fire. :-]
GraceAdict
X is true but X is unliveable so live AS IF x is false.
br.d
Excellent answer GraceAdict!
John Calvin
each ought to so to apply himself to his office, *AS THOUGH* nothing were determined about any part
br.d writes, “Those factors being neurological impulses that appear in your brain – which he AUTHORED. If he doesn’t have understanding of what he AUTHORS he’s in trouble :-]”
By authored, Calvin accepts secondary means. Thus, God create da brain and put it in a body such that putting one’s hand on a hot stove would generated neurological impulses as would looking down from the Empire State bldg as would seeing your neighbor’s new car. God does not initiate those neurological impulses but built those reactions into the brain to respond to anything that stimulated the body. As God understands the brain He made, He can know how it will react in specific situations that God arranges as when Peter is confronted by the girl or David looks across to the building where Bathsheba is bathing.
Then, “There goes Calvin’s god again – AUTHORING events for himself to NOT interfere in again – what a hoot! :-]”
God worked all things into His plan in eternity past including those times when God involves Himself in the affairs of people (e.g., the impregnation of Mary) and when He does not (e.g., the stoning of Stephen). So, God authors events that come about by His direct action and events that come about through secondary means without His direct action. Pretty impressive to me even if you deride God for doing this.
br.d
Those factors being neurological impulses that appear in your brain – which he AUTHORED. If he doesn’t have understanding of what he AUTHORS he’s in trouble :-]”
rhutchin
By authored, Calvin accepts secondary means. …etc
br.d
Too funny! I always get a kick out of your arguments where Calvin quotes “XYZ” doesn’t mean “XYZ” :-]
But alas I know – its all about making Theological Determinism *AS-IF* IN-determinism
And there goes Calvin’s god again – AUTHORING events for himself to interfere/intervene/prevent in (or not).
*AS-IF* creatures actually had an attribute that Calvin’s god (the potter who makes vessels of wrath and honor) didn’t himself AUTHOR
What a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
God worked all things into His plan in eternity past including those times when God involves Himself in….etc
br.d
Yes I know – AUTHORING things for himself to be involved in – *AS-IF* he didn’t AUTHOR them! :-]
Calvinism’s infamous *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
Where all things are determined by the THEOS *AS-IF* they aren’t
So we see that Calvinists are forced to live in an *AS-IF* world.
Who wouldn’t want to run right out and sign up for that! :-]
TS00 writes, “There is absolutely nothing that requires different people who have a free choice to all make the same choice.”
I said, “Had God granted all people an equal choice…” Different people who have equal choice will choose the same. If different people are also “different” in some manner then they do not have “equal” choice and will choose differently on at least one decision. The issue of salvation is a no-brainer choice. Different people with equal choice will choose salvation. If a person does not choose salvation then he is different in some respect from the others. We can explain this by 2 Corinthians 4, “…if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,whose minds the god of this age has blinded,…” or 1 Corinthians 1, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
So, when you say, “if one hangs around a few different people one will quickly see how unique each is,” you mean that people are not equal and not equal in their ability to make choices.
Then, you say, ‘I’ve five young adult children, and the chances of them making the same exact choices in any situation are very slim,” What you mean is that they do not have equal choice – they are different from each other and those differences translate into different choices.
Wow, I suspect that rh has Apsberger’s or some other degree of autism, as his thinking is completely mechanistic, as tends to be the case with such persons. One of my family members with Apsberger’s struggles to understand how neuro-typical people process verbal and especially non-verbal cues in order to determine socially appropriate behavior. Something has been severed in their brains, disabling them from performing these perpetual, unconscious processes that make social interaction possible and pleasant.
Neuro-typical people are not programmed like computers, although they are more likely than the Apsberger’s individual to avoid social pitfalls, such as standing too close, telling inappropriate jokes or staying longer than is welcome. While there is a subconscious process that assists us in knowing when we are making others uncomfortable, it does not lead all people to function in the exact same manner.
We are all unique individuals, and our personalities, egos, needs and desires will be expressed in unique ways. Attend any party or social gathering and you will not see even two persons who express themselves in the exact same manner. You may be able to classify people, such as ‘the life of the party’ types, ‘introverts’ or ‘know-it-alls’, but no two individuals will react in the exact same manner at all times to the same stimuli.
This is the nature of unique, individual beings, something rh and much of Calvinism appears to be in ignorance of. God did not make men who are robots which, when exposed to the same input, will automatically produce the same pre-programmed response. I will add that ‘the flesh’ is actually that part of humans which is pre-programmed to induce certain responses to the desire for food, water and other sensual needs. While necessary to life, even these fleshly desires allow for some degree of variation, and individuals have the ability to monitor and control their response to these fleshly, life-preserving desires.
A rational human being, confronted with the fleshly desire for food, can nonetheless embark upon a hunger strike in protest of some injustice, denying the primal desire to live. Because men are not robots, they can make choices, and those choices can vary to very great degrees. Some men are entirely sensual and can deny themselves nothing. Thus we see those who will rape, steal and murder in pursuit of some desire. Others have a high degree of self control, and will deny themselves in order to put others’ interests first.
Scripture does teach that the sensual man is unaware of the dangers of sensual excess, or the need to control his passions in order to benefit others. This is part of what becoming a mature child of God is all about. We learn to confront and control our fleshly nature, denying personal excess and thinking of the needs of others rather than simply our own natural desires.
To turn all of this into minutely pre-programmed behavior is to turn man into an animal. It appears that rh simply does not truly understand what being made in the image of God means; that is understandable, as Calvinism has distorted that concept into something that is neither logical nor supportable by common evidence.
If equality means sameness then, no, God did not make all men and women equal. There is a vast degree of variations in the physical qualities, mental abilities, and a broad array of circumstances that assure broad distinctions in the lives people live. What we do all have, apart from the physical and mental damage that is frequently caused by the toxification of our world, as well as the cultural oppression of abusive authorities, is the ability and freedom to make individual choices with who and what we are. These choices are not required to be identical to ensure that men have equality of freedom.
TS00 writes, “There is a vast degree of variations in the physical qualities, mental abilities, and a broad array of circumstances that assure broad distinctions in the lives people live.”
What TS00 argues is that people are unique individuals who, presented with the same choice, will make different decisions. That is why we have the elect and the reprobate. So long as we understand that LFW (or whatever free will) does not change the uniqueness of people, we can understand how some become elect and some remain reprobate. As TS00 argues, God is not under obligation to give people equal choice so that so each has an equal ability to choose salvation. It is because God does not give people equal choice that people’s unique abilities with the totality of their biases are able to present different decisions when presented with the same choice. The argument now concerns the extent to which God can affect the decisions people make thereby dividing people into elect and reprobate. Calvinist say that we can trace a person’s decision on salvation, and whether the person becomes one of His elect or remains reprobate, to God’s action; therefore God’s will.
rh writes:
“As TS00 argues, God is not under obligation to give people equal choice so that so each has an equal ability to choose salvation.”
Except that TS00 argued no such thing. 😉
rh writes: “As TS00 argues, God is not under obligation to give people equal choice so that so each has an equal ability to choose salvation.”
YS00: Except that TS00 argued no such thing.
Yet, TS00 appears to believe it given his extended remarks on human freedom. What else could the reader conclude?
RH: “Different people with equal choice will choose salvation”
GA – What you RH are actually saying in your post is that “The Same Person” cloned 4 Billion times and put in the exact same environment at the exact same time in time and space, with the exact same DNA will choose the same thing every time. That is NOT the world that God has created.. Besides that you ignore the fact that even if they did have the same DNA man is a living spiritual being that is also created by God to have a will and be an individual not a cookie cutter being. This is where authentic free-will comes in, man is created in the image of God of his creator to also be creative, requiring unique free choices
Rh appears unable to grasp either the unique individuality or the genuine freedom each person has been granted by God. I am beginning to suspect that it is the Apsberger’s types who become and remain deceived by Calvinism, as it reflects their somewhat impaired view of the world. It is definitely the two Apsberger’s males in my family who are deeply Calvinistic, while most others are very inconsistent, rejecting most of the major premises of the system without realizing that this makes them ‘not’ truly Calvinists. It just happens to be their ‘tribe’.
TS00 writes, “the genuine freedom each person has been granted by God.”
If only TS00 could define “genuine freedom” Only God has “genuine” freedom and that because He has infinite understanding of Himself and whatever He creates. People have little understanding of anything and given that understanding comes from the fear of the Lord, does TS00 really think their will be an explosion in understanding anytime soon??
GraceAdict writes, “What you RH are actually saying in your post is that “The Same Person” cloned 4 Billion times and put in the exact same environment at the exact same time in time and space, with the exact same DNA will choose the same thing every time.”
No. I am saying that different people given the same choice will make different decisions based on their unique biases. Override those biases and give those people an equal choice and they will all make the same decision. The equal choice distinction seems to be the purpose of LFW. If LFW does not involve equal choice, then what does it do that people are so excited about it?
What we argue for is that LFW is required for the greatest ethic to exist…Genuine LOVE…I do not believe that LFW was God’s ultimate Goal for man…God’s Goal for man is that man be in a Genuine LOVE relationship with his creator WHICH requires LFW not a robot. LFW is the means to a Goal if you like…not the Goal itself. Check these verse out.
Mat 22:36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
Mat 22:37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.
Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
In a Robotic type world you can have a form of “obedience” but NOT LOVE that requires LFW.
GraceAdict writes, “…NOT LOVE that requires LFW.”
Why does “love” (genuine or whatever) require LFW? What about LFW makes this necessary?
GraceAdict writes, ‘You have identified your own error…”Had God granted all people an equal choice either all would come to salvation or all would reject salvation.” Is not a biblical truth…it is at best man-made.”
It’s common sense. God gave us a brain so that we can think, If all have an equal choice, then how do some make different decisions than others??
Oooops!!! I guess divine would be Theological.
It’s magic for the determinist! The change of will happens without information or persuation, and with partiality towards some by a supposedely impartial God! That’s not how I read it! 😉
Yep, which is why I could no longer be a part of my Calvinist Church. Once I fully understood its implications, I realized I would have to invite my neighbors with ‘God might love you, and might want you to be delivered from death. Why don’t you come and see what happens’. It just didn’t seem to have the appeal that the genuine gospel does, which truly draws all men to God:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
I simply didn’t relish explaining ‘the catch’ in the offer the rest of my life. Nor, frankly, would I want to follow such a God.
TS00
I realized I would have to invite my neighbors with ‘God *MIGHT* love you, and *MIGHT* want you to be delivered from death.
Why don’t you come and see what happens’.
I simply didn’t relish explaining ‘the catch’ in the offer the rest of my life.
br.d
The Lord was able to prick your conscience.
The vast majority of Calvinists appear to have something going on inside them which dulls that.
And allows them to NOT speak the truth – the whole truth – and nothing but the truth – when they speak to people.
This allows them to hide the dark-side of Calvinism and focus on some *POSSIBLE* bight-side.
True. And they don’t particularly appreciate being called out on it. I say if you are going to assert some astonishing claim, you at least need to own it.
Wanna call yourself ‘Reformed’? Then you need to confess and defend why God deliberately refuses to save many whom he could just as easily have ‘chosen’ to redeem.
Don’t go telling people that God loves them if your theology asserts he just might not. And no word games – nobody is going to buy ‘love’ that gives sunshine and rain in preparation for the kill.
TS00 writes, “Wanna call yourself ‘Reformed’? Then you need to confess and defend why God deliberately refuses to save many whom he could just as easily have ‘chosen’ to redeem. ”
We don’t know why – except that God’s decision was made after the counsel of His will – but we do know that God deliberately refuses to save many based on Matthew 7, ““Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”
brianwagner writes, “It’s magic for the determinist!”
And a work of God for the Calvinist.
Rhutchin writes: “God works through the wills of people to bring about events He has decreed.”
It’s one thing to say that He appeals to their wills, or works with the decisions they make, or guides them to the decision He wants them to make but lets them decide whether to obey or not, and then He works their obedience or disobedience into His plans. Biblical!
But it’s another to say He controls them and causes them to do what they do (or forces them to have the desires He wants them to have), in order to get His will done. Not biblical!
I feel sorry for the Calvinist’s god – far too weak and small-minded to manage anything other than the things he causes.
Rhutchin writes: “God works through the wills of people to bring about events He has decreed.”
br.d
Notice how the Calvinist always avoids telling the WHOLE TRUTH.
Calvin’s god DECREES the wills of people to bring about events he as DECREED.
So that he can blame someone for the things he DECREES. :-]
I think that person would be functioning as what is called a PATSY
br.d writes, “Notice how the Calvinist always avoids telling the WHOLE TRUTH.
Calvin’s god DECREES the wills of people to bring about event he as DECREED.
So that he can blame someone for the things he DECREES. :-]
I think that person would be functioning as what is called a PATSY”
We have the example of this in Isaiah 10:
“Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations.”
Maybe br.d can take this Scripture and tell us the whole truth.
rhutchin
God works through the wills of people to bring about events He has decreed
br.d
Notice how the Calvinist always avoids telling the WHOLE TRUTH.
Calvin’s god DECREES the wills of people to bring about events he has DECREED.
So that he can blame someone for the things he DECREES. :-]
I think that person would be functioning as what is called a PATSY
rhutchin
We have the example of this in Isaiah 10:…..
Maybe br.d can take this Scripture and tell us the whole truth.
br.d
Thank you for providing an example of how Calvinists use scripture to justify not telling the WHOLE TRUTH (about Calvinism).
And as far as br.d taking that scripture to tell the WHOLE TRUTH (about Calvinism) would be to conflate Calvinism with scripture.
And that would be an abuse of scripture
What we use for evidence is Calvin’s doctrine.
Bottom line:
Calvin’s god DECREES the wills of people to bring about events he has DECREED.
Making people function as PATSIES so he can blame them for what he DECREES.
br.d writee, “Thank you for providing an example of how Calvinists use scripture to justify not telling the WHOLE TRUTH (about Calvinism).”
You would not find br.d addressing the truth of Scripture. He runs away from Scripture.
br.d
Thank you for providing an example of how Calvinists use scripture to justify not telling the WHOLE TRUTH (about Calvinism).”
rhutchin
You would not find br.d addressing the truth of Scripture. He runs away from Scripture.
br.d
And you say others have opinions! :-]
br.d writes, “And you say others have opinions!”
An opinion backed up by observation and experience. You will not find br.d addressing the truth of Scripture. He runs away from Scripture; this supported by observation and experience..
br.d
And you say others have opinions!”
rhutchin
An opinion backed up by observation and experience. You will not find br.d addressing the truth of Scripture. He runs away from Scripture; this supported by observation and experience..
br.d
As I’ve said – language is easy to manipulate – which is Calvinism’s strong suit.
The rules that govern language are very loose – and as everyone here watching your posts observes – Calvinists use that to their utmost advantage.
The rules of LOGIC however have become a fixed standard – and when Calvinist attempt to twist it – under LOGICAL scrutiny their gig is up.
br.d writes, “As I’ve said – language is easy to manipulate – which is Calvinism’s strong suit.”
LOL!!! br.d is still running away from Scripture. Lets’ remind br.d of the Scripture br.d runs from:
“We have the example of this in Isaiah 10:…..
Maybe br.d can take this Scripture and tell us the whole truth.”
rhutchin:
“You would not find br.d addressing the truth of Scripture. He runs away from Scripture.”
I would take that as a compliment, that instead of prooftexting with contorted and out of context verses, you actually view the overarching themes of scripture, which are displayed throughout, without contradiction.
Thus, we can affirm that God is love, as it is plainly stated, and any single verse or event that appears to suggest otherwise, we are probably not understanding correctly. We can accept God’s multiple assertions that he desires none to perish, all to turn from wickedness, etc. and if any single verse or snippet appears to suggest otherwise, we know we are not properly interpreting what is being said.
This is so basic. Anyone can take verses out of context and create monstrous claims. And many have, including our old friend John Calvin, who was the king of twisting scripture into unrecognizable shapes and making blasphemous, unthinkable charges against a truly loving, merciful and holy God, in whom there is no evil or injustice whatsoever.
One of RH’s strategies is to set himself up as the judge and you the one he is judging – and try to goad you into defending yourself.
Of course that is an act of futility because as the judge he can simply say you didn’t meet his satisfaction.
*AS-IF* meeting whatever is his satisfaction is the golden standard.
None of us here should be fooled into falling into that trap.
In vain is the net spread in the SIGHT of any bird. :-]
heather writes, “But it’s another to say He controls them and causes them to do what they do (or forces them to have the desires He wants them to have), in order to get His will done. Not biblical!”
People’s desires come from their sin nature and their lack of faith. As br.d will point out, God made them with a sin nature and withheld faith from them thereby causing them to be who they are. Paul describes this in Romans 8, “those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh…For to be carnally minded is death…Because 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.” That is why we get the description in Genesis 6, “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually., and Jeremiah 17, ““The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” God understood that this would be the result of Adam’s sin when He told Adam not to eat the fruit. In His control of sinful humanity, God does not have to force people to do evil but needs only to restrain people from the sin they strive to do, so that people are Totally Depraved but not Utterly Depraved. I see this as Biblical.
rhutchin
People’s desires come from their sin nature and their lack of faith.
br.d
*AS-IF* their sin nature could be what it is without Calvin’s god AUTHORING it and DECREEING it.
rhutchin
As br.d will point out, God made them with a sin nature and withheld faith from them thereby causing them to be who they are.
br.d
What br.d says is – Calvin’s god AUTHORS/DESIGNS every part of every attribute of the creature – and DOSE NOT PERMIT any attribute to be otherwise than what he specifically AUTHORS/DECREES. So every attribute you want to blame has its SOURCE in Calvin’s god.
br.d writes, “What br.d says is – Calvin’s god AUTHORS/DESIGNS every part of every attribute of the creature – and DOSE NOT PERMIT any attribute to be otherwise than what he specifically AUTHORS/DECREES. So every attribute you want to blame has its SOURCE in Calvin’s god.”
More simply, God gives people a sin nature and withholds faith from them. As Paul explains in Romans 9, “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy….Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens…What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,…”
Br.d. said earlier: “Some of rhutchin’s pronouncements make me think of a person who inserts a quarter into his left ear – and out pops one of his crazy statements. Of course pronounced without blinking. :-]”
Made me giggle!
When my husband reads rhutchin’s stuff, he hears it in Sheldon’s voice, from Big Bang Theory. But I hear it in the voice of Charlie Brown’s teacher.
TS00 says: “I find it telling that Calvinists always weave together snippets of unrelated passages to concoct their theories.”
They are the children of Calvin! In his Institutes, Calvin uses Psalm 33 (verses 6 and 13) to support his idea that God controls everything: “God created the heavens, He beholdeth the children of men.” He takes two separated verses, mashes them together, and then basically says “See, since God caused/controlled the creation of the heavens, He must also necessarily cause/control every detail of His creation, including us. Because He talks about men in the same chapter where He talks about creating the heavens. Therefore, He controls everything we do, just like He controls the heavens.”
Yet – DUH! – he clearly ignores one of the verses right in the middle, verse 10: “The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the people.”
If God is controlling men, then why does He have to thwart their plans? Aren’t those really just HIS plans that He’s thwarting then, because He controlled the people, causing them to make those plans? That’s one bizarre, self-sabotaging god, pointlessly causing plans that he then has to thwart! (And how does one get “controls” from “beholdeth” (I.e. “looks upon”)? You have to do some severe stretching to get that!)
The Calvinist method: Pick the verses you like, use them to reinterpret any other verses that can be twisted to be Calvinistic, and ignore the rest or explain them away with “mystery.” Voila! Calvinism!
Heather:
You said….
“The Calvinist method: Pick the verses you like, use them to reinterpret any other verses that can be twisted to be Calvinistic, and ignore the rest or explain them away with “mystery.” Voila! Calvinism!”
I need to add a disclaimer. It sounds in the above like there are a lot of verses to choose from. No so. Maybe you could say “Pick from the around 40-50 go-to verses Calvinists use …..use them to interpret….”
heather writes, “If God is controlling men, then why does He have to thwart their plans? Aren’t those really just HIS plans that He’s thwarting then, because He controlled the people, causing them to make those plans?”
God uses the evil desires of people to accomplish His plans. Examples of this are Joseph’s brothers seeking to kill Joseph but only able to sell Joseph to the slave traders because that was God’s plan and the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 who wanted to pillage, rape, and kill but were denied the ability to do this to Israel until God said so. Thus, the Proverb, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
rhutchin
God uses the evil desires of people to accomplish His plans
br.d
This is a great example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking.
In this case *AS-IF* a person can have a desire that Calvin’s god did not AUTHOR and did not impose on the creature as FATE.
Thanks for another great example rhutchin :-]
rhutchin: “God uses the evil desires of people to accomplish His plans”
br.d: “This is a great example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking.”
As supported by Scripture.
Joseph said to his brothers, ““But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.”
Then, in Acts, ““Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know–Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;…For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”
Rhutchin says: “’Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation’…. Maybe br.d can take this Scripture and tell us the whole truth.”
Yeah, it’s “God using people’s self-chosen evilness to accomplish His plans. And since they chose to be evil – with no help from Him – He can JUSTLY punish them for it later.”
But what would Calvinists say? “Calvi-god caused them to be evil, then he made them attack his people, then he punished them for being evil when he himself caused them to be that way and they had no choice about it. Oh, and he’s still just and loving and good and righteous and trustworthy!”
HOGWASH!
How dare you do the very thing I DECREED you to do!
Now I’m really going to enjoy punishing you for that!
What – you say I didn’t give you any other option?
What – you say I didn’t PERMIT you to do otherwise?
What – you say I DESIGNED you to be/do everything you be/do?
Well all of that is beside the point!
You see – the problem I have here is – if I give you the option to DO OTHERWISE then what I DECREE then you may not choose to sin like I want you to. Then how am I supposed to have all of the sins and evils I take so much pleasure in?
You see my dilemma don’t you?
Now right about now – you’re supposed be thanking me for DECREEING you do all sorts of sins and evils.
But of-course HA-HA your not going to do that unless I DECREE it are you!
So guess what – I’ll just DECREE you NOT do that – and then punish you for NOT doing it!
I just love making evil good!
Rhutchin: “Calvinism seeks to answer the question, “If God so loves the world, why doesn’t God save each and every person?”
Yes, Calvinism seeks to answer this question. And it does so by deciding for itself what God’s love accomplishes. It decided that if God truly loves someone then He WILL save that person (instead of the Biblical view of His love where, out of love, He paid the price for all sins and made salvation available for all).
And since they start with a wrong view of His love, they then have to decide what this means for those God didn’t “elect”. (However, election itself – “forced salvation – is something Calvinism also created). And so they philosophize that God must not love those who aren’t saved because, according to them, God only saves those He loves and only loves those He saves.
Calvinism is a big bag of assumptions and misconceptions and errant philosophical musings from the very beginning, reducing God’s love from big to tiny – reducing God from a God who loves all people, wants all people to be saved, and who made salvation available to all to a god who only cares about a few people enough to save them (when he has enough power to save all) and who derives sick pleasure and glory from deliberately damning everyone else to hell. But what else would you expect from a 26-ish-year-old lawyer with delusions of grandeur and a legalistic, controlling, megalomaniac personality!?!
Heather,
Part of the problem is that Calvinists start with ideas like “God of everything or God of nothing.” “Controls everything or controls nothing.” And they they pick Scriptures that might (if interpreted their way) uphold that idea.
But that is not the God of the Bible who is constantly rejected by people,…. who constantly holds out His hand to a people who may say no…..who, in many places in the Bible (many places) tells them “you did not do what I wanted!”
How can they build this “controls everything or controls nothing” idea when He says himself that they are constantly rejecting him?
They just do it cuz it sound like it makes him more awesome….not cuz Scripture says it that way. If it even remotely clearly said that “He control everything” (even our sins included) then we—who want to follow Him would believe it.
They have taken a Greek understanding of God and made it the template for the biblical God.
Nah…..not biblical, not necessary….. and certainly makes Him far less loving than He is commanding us to be!
FOH writes, “How can they build this “controls everything or controls nothing” idea when He says himself that they are constantly rejecting him?”
By virtue of being sovereign, God is in control of everything He created. Your complaint seems to be how God exercises His sovereignty.
Then, “But that is not the God…. who constantly holds out His hand to a people who may say no….”
Yet, God knows (wink, wink) that people without faith will always say no (except in your Bible where you cut out that stuff).
rhutchin
By virtue of being sovereign, God is in control of everything He created. Your complaint seems to be how God exercises His sovereignty.
br.d
How many hundreds of times have I heard a Calvinist complain against Calvin’s god’s DECREE to make a non-Calvinist criticize Calvinism.
Jesus said to the Calvinists: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”
And they all thought he was giving them permission to compete with each other! :-]
BR.D., Love your “How dare you …” comment. That is totally the Calvinist’s god. And I simply can’t understand how they don’t – won’t – acknowledge it. It’s a truly amazing, complex web of slippery lies, able to keep its hold so tightly on so many intelligent people, many of whom really do want to be humble and to honor God. It’s sad.
I think there will be a heavy eternal price to pay for the Calvinist teachers who put these shackles-of-lies on such well-meaning Christians. Such a shame. It’s hard for me to watch my old church grow more and more entrenched in Calvinism, knowing that no one will heed my warnings unless they want to. And unfortunately, their Calvi-pastor is such a powerful speaker that no one will want to consider that he might be wrong.
It’s like watching a ship hit an iceberg and start sinking slowly. And I am on a lifeboat, frantically waving my hands at them, trying to get them to see that they are going down and need to get off the ship, or at least fix the hole. But they just keep talking and laughing, “praising God” together, unaware that the ship is going down.
And all I can do is watch, hoping and praying that they realize it someday too.
Heather, that is exactly how I feel, only my spouse and some of my kids are on that ship. It makes it hard to just stand helplessly by, but as God exemplifies, love cannot force anything on another.
Rhutchin says: “By virtue of being sovereign, God is in control of everything He created. Your complaint seems to be how God exercises His sovereignty.”
No, my complaint is with how Calvinists have decided for themselves – contrary to Scripture – how God has to use His sovereignty in order to be a sovereign God.
I believe that God can exercise His sovereign control however He wants, even by giving people free-will, the ability to make their own decisions about if they will accept or reject Him. if they will obey or disobey. And I believe this is what Scripture clearly shows again and again.
It’s Calvinists who refuse to accept how God Himself has decided to use His control and exercise His sovereignty. They will only accept the idea that sovereignty means that He has to be the ultimate, active cause of everything that happens, even sin and evil and deliberately putting people in hell.
Calvinism: Mankind telling God how God has to be in order to be God!
heather writes, “I believe that God can exercise His sovereign control however He wants,…”
No problem with Calvinists on that.
Then, “…even by giving people free-will, the ability to make their own decisions about if they will accept or reject Him.”
Isn’t faith necessary to free will and particularly, that decision? IF, Yes, I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
Then, “They will only accept the idea that sovereignty means that He has to be the ultimate, active cause of everything that happens, even sin and evil and deliberately putting people in hell.”
Given that God is sovereign doesn’t He have the final say on anything that happens – having the power to prevent whatever He wants and able to withhold His power for those things He does not want to prevent?
Rhutchin says: “God uses the evil desires of people to accomplish His plans.”
Spoken like a true non-Calvinist!
Because the God of the Bible does work people’s evil desires/decisions into His plans. Whereas Calvi-god CAUSES the evil desires of people for his plans, giving people no choice but to be evil and do evil. And then he punishes them for it.
heather writes, “Spoken like a true non-Calvinist!”
Non-Calvinists don’t disagree with Calvinists on everything. Both agree that people are born with a sin nature and without faith, thereby Totally Depraved. They believe that faith is a gift from God. etc.
rh writes:
“Non-Calvinists don’t disagree with Calvinists on everything. Both agree that people are born with a sin nature and without faith, thereby Totally Depraved. They believe that faith is a gift from God. etc.”
Nice try. Only a select few non-Calvinists believe these things. Some have been brainwashed into the concept of Total Depravity or a sin nature that demands one must sin. Some believe that faith is a gift from God. Most do not.
Most believe that in some way sin came into this world when Adam sinned; few really try to understand how or why or what exatly that means, other than to believe scripture’s teaching that all sin and require a savior. Most believe that faith is the required response to God’s revelations and promises.
TS00 writes, “Only a select few non-Calvinists believe these things….Most believe that in some way sin came into this world when Adam sinned; few really try to understand how or why or what exatly that means, other than to believe scripture’s teaching that all sin and require a savior. Most believe that faith is the required response to God’s revelations and promises.”
In other words, most non-Calvinist believe what they are told to believe and don’t try to understand what they are told.
TS00 said: “My favorite ploy is when he quotes scripture to support the opposite of what Calvinism asserts. Saves us from having to respond: Scripture says ‘A’, so even though Calvinism asserts ‘non-A’, we will pretend as if quoting scripture’s ‘A’ somehow confirms Calvinism’s ‘non-A’ and all is good. I presume the assumption is that everyone will run from the room screaming at the absurdity of it all, and the last one in the room wins.”
Love it! Calvinists totally do this by quoting Scripture like “The Bible says God doesn’t cause anyone to sin,” but then they go right into the sovereignty of God in causing all that happens (which – duh! – includes sin). But they must think that if they quote the Bible verse first, then we will shut off our critical thinking skills and go “Hmm, I’m not really sure what he’s saying, but he said God doesn’t cause sin, so he couldn’t possibly be saying now that God causes sin. I don’t really understand what he’s saying, but I guess I can trust that he knows what he’s talking about. Because he just quoted Scripture.”
heather writes, “Calvinists totally do this by quoting Scripture like “The Bible says God doesn’t cause anyone to sin,…”
This from James, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin;…”
Then, “…but then they go right into the sovereignty of God in causing all that happens (which – duh! – includes sin).’
This from Ephesians 1, “…works all things according to the counsel of His will,…”
So, maybe you can apply your critical thinking to explain these verses to mean something other than what they say.
“…works all things according to the counsel of His will,…”
This, and Rom 8:28 are almost too easy. There is absolutely no reason to assert that such statements demand predestination and meticulous divine control of whatsoever comes to pass. What they do tell us that whatsoever does come to pass, however awful or evil the rebellious choices of man might be, is not beyond God’s ability to turn into a part of his long-term plan for the redemption of his creation. It is almost laughable, in my opinion, to claim that these verses prove determinism. I read in them the exact opposite.
TS00 writes, “What they do tell us that whatsoever does come to pass…is not beyond God’s ability to turn into a part of his long-term plan”
Ephesians says, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” It does not say, or imply, what you want – that God CAN ONLY work all things according to the counsel of His will” You are watering down the Scriptures at this point weakening the point made by Paul.
Hello Everett and welcome!
I’m very heartened by the degree of sincerity and integrity you express.
And I must however acknowledge, from my experience, that that degree of sincerity and integrity is an indicator that you have not progressed into full Calvinism.
Full Calvinism embraces what is commonly called “Universal Divine Causal Determinism”
The thesis that all things without exception are determined by the THEOS at the foundation of the world.
In Reformed vernacular – they are RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
Calvinist; Dr. James N. Anderson, of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC, in his published work Calvinism and the first sin, states it this way:
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God…..take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold and may be expressed as the following: “For every event [E], God decided that [E] should happen and that decision alone was the ultimate sufficient cause of [E].”
Calvinist theologian R. C. Sproul states it this way:
“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God”.
Calvinist Paul Helm states it this way:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the direct control of God”.
Dr. William Lane Craig explains how determinism makes all things outside of our control:
-quote:
The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. “
Great to hear from you Everett!
Please read the whole context of Romans 3.
He starts with
“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?”
Then he says , “What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.”
The whole setting is to show that all have sinned and all are equal in meriting death. So no one does enough right to undo the wrong….but not that no one can ever do even one tiny right/ good/ nice/ patient thing.
His meaning is …dont count on a bit of credit for being a Jew.
But 10-11 are used far too liberally by Calvinists. The verses go on to say this about ALL:
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Do we literally all have the poison of vipers on our lips? Or is this his poetic way to make a point?
We all have feet that are swift to shed blood?
Nah….. these verses do not mean what Calvinists (in their NEED to prove Total Depravity) make them mean. Context!
Stick around Everett and join some of us former Calvinists!
After reading the replies to my comments, I thought I should clarify a couple of things.
First, I think I may have been confusing about what I mean by “heart change”. I wasn’t taking into consideration that the Calvinists you normally encounter on this forum actually believe the person is essentially converted before he even makes the choice to repent and believe. I don’t believe there’s any “pre-decision” conversion like that. What I mean by “heart change” is that by the preaching of the gospel the fallow ground of the heart is broken up so that the person is able to receive the seed being sown by the preacher. It’s that person’s choice whether to reject it, or to allow that seed to take root and grow.
Second, I’m aware that universalists often quote passages containing the words “all men” to support their errant doctrine. I don’t believe when Jesus said he would draw all men they would automatically be saved without their conscious decision to respond, repent, and believe.
Third, I’m very aware of the warped view of the Sovereignty of God held by strict 5 point Calvinists. In fact, as I was experiencing the deconstruction of my own “Calvinist light” beliefs, I learned more about what “full Calvinists” believe than I had known prior. I remember being surprised, even shocked, by John Piper’s weird assertion that even when he’s playing Scrabble with his wife, God controls the tiles in the bag! I was equally surprised to learn that some of my friends actually believed that God in his sovereignty causes people to sin, contrary to James 1:3. I remember being appalled by a discussion in my men’s Bible study group where it was stated that God caused David to sin with Bathsheba. What???!!!! So, God then punished him in judgement for the sin that he had no choice or control over committing? Ridiculous, and highly offensive to malign God’s character that way! I spent enough years in deep sin myself to know that consequences I’ve reaped are my own fault.
As far as the 5 points of the TULIP, I never believed in the “L”. The “I” fell apart when I couldn’t find that in scripture (in fact plenty of scripture in opposition). The “U” fell when I heard Leighton discussing the idea of Corporate Election, and just looking at the Election proof texts in context! The “P” went down while studying Hebrews (although I still don’t believe people just “lose” their salvation. I do believe people can renounce it, though.) So the “T” is the only one still standing, and it’s on really shaky ground as I’ve gained more understanding of what Calvinists actually believe on that topic, which seems to be quite different from my definition!
Since that last bit was me going off on a tangent, allow me this last indulgence. I’ve been amused when watching Leighton debate a Calvinist as they assert that he somehow doesn’t understand the Calvinist position! I chuckle when he informs them of the number of years he spent as a Calvinist. But what really amuses me is that as they explain what they actually believe, I find more reasons to reject it. That’s right! I just didn’t understand what I was saying when I said I was Calvinist! Now that you’ve explained it, I’m pretty sure I don’t wanna be that anymore! LOL!
Everett,
That is music to my ears that you are farther than you think away from Calvinism!
Hard-core Calvinists would say that means you are leaving the Gospel.
Harder-core Calvinists will say that God determined that you would determine that Calvinism is not true!
Average Calvinists will say that you are just preferring a different tradition/interpretation within the church (that’s nice).
Everett, if you read here much you will find that many here once held to what they thought was Reformed Theology (Calvinism). It is usually a fuller understanding of the necessary doctrines to the system that leads people to begin doubting its veracity. I know many loving, God-fearing, bible -revering individuals who call themselves ‘Calvinists’, but would be appalled at these very necessary doctrinal assertions. They have been told, by pastors, authors and others that that is not ‘true’ Calvinism, or that it is Hyper-Calvinism, or that some things simply cannot be resolved so must be ‘held in tension’.
In other words, rather than confront the assertions of the theological system honestly, head-on, many are reassured, distracted and encouraged to focus on more helpful things. It is this lack of transparency, of honestly addressing legitimate questionable assertions inherent to Calvinism that has led many of us to comment here, in hopes of informing, assisting and encouraging others who struggle with these issues.
May God continue to bless and lead you – along with all of us – into more and more understanding as we spend time in his Word and learning from our life experiences.
Haha! “Hyper-Calvinism” – yeah, that sounds familiar! And the constant appeal to mystery, all while concurrently being taught about “the plain meaning” of scripture!
Apparently the “plain meaning” was what THEY said it meant, not what the scripture actually means!
Everett
I remember John Piper’s weird assertion that even when he’s playing Scrabble with his wife, God controls the tiles in the bag!
br.d
Its clear to me that John Piper is an expert at damage control language – what I call “cosmetic” language .
Mostly he does this by using language that is strategically misleading and especially NOT truth-telling.
As you can see from the quotes I provided from R.C. Sproul and Paul Helms – not only does Calvin’s god control which tiles are in the bag which Piper will pull out – he also controls every neurological impulse that will ever appear in Pipers brain – so that Piper cannot even have one single thought that he can call his own.
ALL things without exception are determined (including every neurological impulse and every body movement) at the foundation of the world – millennia before Mr. Piper existed.
The fact that John Piper cannot tell the truth – the whole truth – and nothing but the truth – when he speaks
Should be a red flag that something is wrong with the doctrine.
These unspoken truths are such that John Pipe will not allow himself to even enunciate them.
That should tell you something!
I think I’m stuck here too. I’ve been secretly reading things and hiding from my Calvinistic friends and church family. It’s scary lol. But I now am started to believe that God calls All men to accept his gift. It’s a free choice. Because he graciously out of his Sovereignty lets them make it. I now view sovereignty in a different way. Lord help me in this. I’ve been a Calvinist for 10 years. Went though the “cage stage” and now regret my hate I spewed on friends 🙁 How do I undo this? I will always believe though in perseverance of the saints. I believe He keeps those in him forever. He does it though.
Hello Christina – and welcome!
Firstly – I thank the Lord for what he has done in your life.
I especially thank him that he opened your eyes concerning Calvinism and is in the process of delivering you from it.
In your lament over things you’ve done – I remember the Apostle Paul lamenting about things he did to the saints before he believed in Jesus. The Lord can use all thing we lament about for the good – as he redeems those very parts of us that were at one time abusive or hurtful – and He makes those very things become our strong Christ-like characteristics. But as long as we remain soft towards him, we will always feel that lament.
There are others here who have come out of Calvinism – and I hope you’ll find fellowship, enlightenment and commiseration with them.
Blessings!
br.d
Christina:
It is great to hear of others that a moving away from Calvinism. Keep posting! Share with others the things that led you out.
I have been doing that for some time now.
Welcome Christina! I also believe the word is clear that those born into God’s family by His grace through faith are kept forever in His family. I pray the Lord gives you wisdom on how to help your loved ones understand God’s sovereignty according to Scripture. Leighton was a closet non-Calvinist for a number of years, as I recall. 😊
Hello Christina, I am so glad that God has moved your heart to begin to see him as he truly is. If you have been reading here, you know that many of us were involved with or seduced by Calvinism for a number of years before we also began to see that it just did not add up to what scripture teaches about the love and mercy of God. For me it was a marvelous, joyful day when I felt that the loving God of my youth was restored to me.
Just cling to him, and seek his guidance as he continues to add more and more to your understanding. That’s really all any of us can do. It can be hard to reject beliefs we have long held; especially if they are also held by our family and friends. Don’t be afraid to cast aside former preconceptions and consider alternatives. It never hurts to consider possibilities – even those we later deem faulty.
I will confess that it has been a sometimes difficult journey, but I would not go back for anything. I am so thankful to be able to witness to a genuine love of God for all men, and his unquestionable desire to grant all an abundant, eternal life in fellowship with him. This is the greatest gift ever offered, and its worth exceeds all other things, even the fellowship of our most dear ones on this earth. I will be praying for you.
For what it’s worth, the simplest and most biblically-consistent way for me to understand the “Father draws” and “I will draw all men” verses is that the only way anyone comes to Jesus is because God “drew” them. But this is not just for certain people exclusively. All people are “drawn” to God, meaning that He gives light enough and knowledge enough to all people (through the works of His hands and the work of the Holy Spirit) to be able to find Him, to draw them to Jesus. So anyone who comes to Jesus has been drawn by God. But those who reject Jesus don’t reject Him because they weren’t drawn, but because they resisted the draw that God put on their hearts, on all men’s hearts.
To me, “drawing” doesn’t mean “must be saved.” It’s simply that we couldn’t come to God unless God made it possible for us to come to Him. We couldn’t find Him unless He wanted to be found and made it possible to find Him. And since He wants to be found, He gives us all enough knowledge to know the truth (and the opportunity to respond), but we decide whether to accept or reject it.
This is how I see it, balancing God’s work and man’s responsibility to respond. This fits both the “No one can come to me unless the Father draws them” verse and the “I will draw all men” verse. And it fits the “God doesn’t want anyone to perish” verse and the “Jesus died so that all men may be saved” verse and the “All men are without excuse because God’s works are clearly seen in nature” verse and many more.
The draw is there for all. But we choose whether to respond to it or resist it.
heather writes, “the simplest and most biblically-consistent way for me to understand the “Father draws” and “I will draw all men” verses is that the only way anyone comes to Jesus is because God “drew” them.”
Thus, you affirm the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity and the need for God to intervene to save anyone. Most people come to the same conclusion as you.
Then, ‘All people are “drawn” to God,…”
What is Jesus’ promise to the individual God draws, “I will raise him up at the last day.” Despite Brian’s grammatical claim that he has not figured out how to apply, Jesus’ promise is certain – Jesus will raise up the individual whom God draws to Him. We know this from v37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out,” and v45, ‘Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
When you say, “All people are “drawn” to [Christ],…” you mean, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father is drawn to Christ.” “Drawing” is defined in v45 as hearing and learning from the father. So, ““No individual can come to Christ…” unless “the Father draws that individual through hearing and teaching,” so that the individual who hears and is taught comes” and to that individual Jesus says, “I will raise him up at the last day.”
Then, “To me, “drawing” doesn’t mean “must be saved.”
It’s fine for you to hypothesize a position. Now you just need to incorporate v37 and v45 into your thinking.
Rhutchin says: “Thus, you affirm the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity and the need for God to intervene to save anyone”
I most certainly do not, not in the way you see it. (But if it makes you feel better to keep thinking that, then go ahead. Because if you can make it sound like we all secretly believe what you do, then I guess you win, right?)
I believe in depravity, as in man is fallen now and cannot save himself. But not in Calvinist Total Depravity, that man cannot think about or respond to God unless God makes him do it. And I believe that God works in man to help us come to Him (He calls to all of us and gives us all enough evidence of Himself in nature and in our hearts so that we all know He’s real and can realize our need to seek Him and find Him), but I do not believe in the Calvinist idea that God only intervenes in the hearts of the elect to make them come to Him.
My view and yours are very different!
Well done Heather. Don’t take the bait or the goading.
The Scripture is FULL of hundreds of times where God (The Sovereign “God of the Armies of Israel”) calls and pleads but people do not come. So….yes He draws!
Can we refuse? All one has to do is read the Bible (without presupposed lenses) and she will see that man refuses God’s call (even His chosen/ called people) all the time!
He calls…but we can say no. That is what Tozer is talking about when he says a Sovereign God is big enough to give real choices.
FOH writes, “That is what Tozer is talking about when he says a Sovereign God is big enough to give real choices.”
Even Tozer knew that there is no real choice without faith and when God gives a person assurance and conviction, we have what Paul describes in Colossians, “…our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance,…And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became examples to all…” and Thessalonians, ‘…we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
rhutchin
Even Tozer knew that there is no real choice without faith
br.d
I think Tozer knew that choice that is made IRRESISTIBLE by an overwhelming supernatural force – is having one’s choice s made in advance FOR them.
In such case the creature is NOT PERMITTED to choose between two alternatives – because only one option is made available – that option having already been chosen for them.
Now the Calvinist can fabricate and ILLUSION that the creature in such case is PERMITTED to choose between “election vs. Non-Election” (i.e. Salvation vs damnation). But that is simply an ILLUSION the Calvinist needs in order to make his system APPEAR biblical.
br.d writes, “I think Tozer knew that choice that is made IRRESISTIBLE by an overwhelming supernatural force – is having one’s choice s made in advance FOR them.”
That supernatural irresistible force is “faith.” Even Tozer surely recognized the irresistible power of faith and for God to give a person faith is for God to make the choice in advance for the person.
Then, “In such case the creature is NOT PERMITTED to choose between two alternatives – because only one option is made available – that option having already been chosen for them.”
That’s what faith does because faith is assurance and conviction. Faith reduces the salvation decision to one option.
Them “that is simply an ILLUSION the Calvinist needs in order to make his system APPEAR biblical.”
Where is the illusion? What about faith and its irresistibility is not Biblical?
br.d
“I think Tozer knew that choice that is made IRRESISTIBLE by an overwhelming supernatural force – is having one’s choice s made in advance FOR them.”
rhutchin
That supernatural irresistible force is “faith.”
br.d
You always conflate CAUSE with EFFECT
In this case faith is the EFFECT – and the IRRESISTIBLE FORCE is the CAUSE
In Calvinism the creature is NOT PERMITTED to choose between two alternatives – because only one option is made available – that option having already been chosen for them.”
rhutchin
That’s what faith does….etc
br.d
Again – faith is an EFFECT which Calvin’s god actualizes in the course of the human time-line.
The CAUSE (the SUPERNATURAL FORCE) is actualized prior to the existence of the human time-line.
rhutchin
Where is the illusion?
br.d
All one has to do is read and THINK my statement through.
Where Calvin’s god makes available to you only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED option (election vs Non-election)
And you have the ILLUSION that he has made available to you both options.
Anyone who can THINK LOGICALLY can recognize that as an ILLUSION.
But we don’t expect LOGICAL THINKING from Calvinist of course
Because we understand why Calvinists need those ILLUSIONS! :-]
FOH is absoutly correct!
Also if you haven’t seen Kevin’s video (Beyond the fundamentals) you might want to see it.
Kevin’s focus is on the WHOLE context of these verses rather than ripping individual verses out of their pages and forcing external meanings into them in order to use them a proof-texts.
The video is on youtube. “Calvinist Problems with John 6:65”
heather: “the simplest and most biblically-consistent way for me to understand the “Father draws” and “I will draw all men” verses is that the only way anyone comes to Jesus is because God “drew” them.”
rhutchin: ” “Thus, you affirm the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity”
heather: “I most certainly do not, not in the way you see it.” Then, ‘I do not believe in the Calvinist idea that God only intervenes in the hearts of the elect to make them come to Him.”
So, your problem is not with Total Depravity to which you certainly agree (“I believe in depravity, as in man is fallen now and cannot save himself.”), but with election. Your problem is not with John 6:44 but with 6:37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
Rhutchin says: “No individual can come to Christ…” unless “the Father draws that individual through hearing and teaching,” so that the individual who hears and is taught comes” and to that individual Jesus says, “I will raise him up at the last day.”
So let me get this straight: You believe that God uses the Word to draw people to Him (a Word that has been given to all men – Mark 16:15, Luke 24:47, Titus 2:11), not that we come to God by being elected and regenerated BEFORE we even hear the Gospel? And if we really hear and learn what God is trying to tell us through Scripture and come to Him because of it, we will be saved and be raised up at the last day?
Most people come to the same conclusion as you. When they read and understand the Word correctly.
heather asks “So let me get this straight: You believe that God uses the Word to draw people to Him (a Word that has been given to all men – Mark 16:15, Luke 24:47, Titus 2:11), not that we come to God by being elected and regenerated BEFORE we even hear the Gospel?”
If God uses the word to draw a person to Christ, doesn’t that suggest that God chose to draw that person prior to using the word to affect that choice? Doesn’t a person have to be born again before they can see the kingdom of God, so doesn’t that suggest that a person must be born again (regenerated) prior to using the word to draw the person to see the kingdom?
heather writes, “You believe that God uses the Word to draw people to Him …not that we come to God by being elected and regenerated BEFORE we even hear the Gospel?”
Election and regeneration precede, and enable, one hearing the gospel. Hearing the gospel is the means of receiving faith. By faith one comes to Christ.
Then, “And if we really hear and learn what God is trying to tell us through Scripture and come to Him because of it, we will be saved and be raised up at the last day?”
Yes – as “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.”
Then, ‘Most people come to the same conclusion as you. When they read and understand the Word correctly.”
On that point, we agree.
Rhutchin, A Calvinist’s Total Depravity IS Election. The are both a part of each other. And don’t call it “depravity” (which is a biblical idea). Call it what you really mean it is: Total Inability. A person who is total unable to come to God unless God causes them to can ONLY come by election, by God choosing to elect them. And God causes only the elect to overcome their Total Inability in order to come to Him. Total Inability IS a part of Election. Election IS a part of Total Inability. And neither has anything to do with a biblical view of depravity and how we truly come to Christ.
heather writes, “A Calvinist’s Total Depravity IS Election”
Not exactly. Total Depravity makes election necessary.
Then, “Call it what you really mean it is: Total Inability. ”
True “inability” because of the absence of faith. Without faith no one can be saved.
Then, “A person who is total unable to come to God unless God causes them to can ONLY come by election, by God choosing to elect them.”
Or they can come on their own volition without the grace of God. If a person reasons that he needs to be saved without God gibing him faith, then God will accept him. But, as you said, “the simplest and most biblically-consistent way for me to understand the “Father draws” and “I will draw all men” verses is that the only way anyone comes to Jesus is because God “drew” them.”
Then, ‘Total Inability IS a part of Election. ”
That’s closer. Both TD and election are part of salvation – the one describing the need for salvation and the other describing God’s part in salvation.
Then, “Election IS a part of Total Inability. And neither has anything to do with a biblical view of depravity and how we truly come to Christ.”
The Biblical view of depravity is that which you described, “..the simplest and most biblically-consistent way for me to understand the “Father draws” and “I will draw all men” verses is that the only way anyone comes to Jesus is because God “drew” them.” Depravity is such that no one can overcome their depravity and come to Christ on their own – God must draw him. That is also Total Depravity.
Calvinists say that God elects to draw certain people; you say that God elects to draw all people. We know from Romans 8, “…whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that Christ might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom God predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Rhutchin, No need to answer me, but I’m just wondering…
I’m wondering if you’ve ever prayed and asked God to reveal to you if your theology is wrong. I’m wondering if you’ve ever gotten on your knees and prayed (and really meant it) “God, please show me if I am wrong in how I am viewing things! I really want to and need to know what the truth really is so that I don’t buy into lies and end up spreading falsehoods about You and Your Gospel, profaning Your truth and Your holy name. Show me if I have been letting pride in my own intelligence affect my theology, instead of basing my views strictly on Your Word.”
I’m wondering if you’ve simply plowed ahead in your own understanding, refusing to give God permission to correct you.
I’m just wondering.
If we ask Him to show us truth (and we really mean it), He’ll guide us into truth. But if we want to plow ahead in our own prideful, wayward understanding, He’ll let us.
And for the record, yes I have. When I was trying to figure out what the Bible really says, I would find verses that sounded very Calvinistic. And I would worry that if I researched them too deeply, it might undo my whole view, that maybe I would realize that it really is a verse that undeniably supports Calvinism. And I would hesitate for a moment, afraid to find out that I might have been wrong all along.
But I would very quickly realize that I wanted to and needed to know the TRUTH, even if meant that God had to tell me I was wrong all along. And so I would pray, “Lord, please show me what You’re really saying in this verse, even if it means showing me I’ve been wrong all along. I really want to and need to know the truth. And so I am asking You to correct me if I’m wrong, to guide me to understand this verse correctly.”
And then I would dig in deep, research the verse, look up the words in the concordance, etc. And thankfully, I would learn that almost no Calvinist-sounding verse is as undeniably Calvinist as it might seem at first. And many that seem to support Calvinism do not actually support Calvinism at all. There are always ways it can be read that coincide with the rest of the Bible and with God’s good, holy character, instead of – as Calvinism does – contradicting and making a mess of the rest of the Bible and of God’s character.
Whether you’ve prayed this or not makes no difference to me. But it does make a huge difference to the Lord and to your relationship with Him and to your eternity.
heather writes, ‘I would learn that almost no Calvinist-sounding verse is as undeniably Calvinist as it might seem at first.”
Then you should be able to make substantive contributions to the conversation here. You don;t have to address every verse at one time. Take it one verse at a time and let;s see where it goes. So far, we seem to agree on the effect of John 6:44 to require an act of God to save a person or at least, begin that process..
rhutchin
So far, we seem to agree on the effect of John 6:44 to require an act of God to save a person or at least, begin that process..
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the “act” of Calvin’s god is to EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINE every neurological impulse that will ever appear in the person’s brain. And in the “act” of being the EXCLUSIVE DETERMINER of *ALL* things, leave nothing left over for that person to determine.
It would be more TRUTHFUL to begin with that process – rather than manufacturing ILLUSIONS of the contrary.
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism…etc.”
br.d agrees that “the effect of John 6:44 to require an act of God to save a person or at least, begin that process.”
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the “act” of Calvin’s god is to EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINE every neurological impulse that will ever appear in the person’s brain. And in the “act” of being the EXCLUSIVE DETERMINER of *ALL* things, leave nothing left over for that person to determine.
It would be more TRUTHFUL to begin with that process – rather than manufacturing ILLUSIONS of the contrary.
rhutchin
br.d agrees that “the effect of John 6:44 to require an act of God to save a person or at least, begin that process.”
br.d
If you got that from what I posted – your mind is further gone than I thought!
And BTW – I’ve told you before – you can presume to speak for yourself – but not for others.
Everyone here recognizes that tactic as manifesting a lack of intellectual honesty.
So you don’t do yourself any favors with it.
Rhutchin says “Take it one verse at a time…”
I think that right there is a fundamental flaw of Calvinism – always and only taking “one verse at a time,” losing sight of the overall message of the Bible and the overall truth of God’s character. Any verse, taken alone, can be taken out of context and twisted to say almost whatever they want. And in doing so, they fail to keep the message of the whole Bible consistent and in tact.
Which commenter is it who says “The Calvinist motto: Never waste a chance to take a half-verse out of context”? Or something like that. So right on!
This is why we can never really have a rational debate against a Calvinist – they are forever picking and choosing “one verse at a time,” ignoring context and other verses that teach something different. And this makes them go round-and-round with circular reasoning and “secret double meanings” and other nonsensical things like that. And then they believe that their interpretation must be correct, because for them, the rest of the Bible and God’s revealed character is irrelevant to their understanding of that verse. Therefore, nothing and no one can correct them.
I wrote a somewhat similar post once, and I think it fits here too. Here it is:
“Why You’ll Never Win a Debate Against a Dogmatic Calvinist”:
Because they don’t play by the rules of logic!
They have no problem accepting completely illogical and contradictory ideas as “truth.”
They have no problem saying “Of course God said He loved the world. But He meant He has two kinds of love. A general ‘give you food and water’ kind of love for everyone and a special ‘save your soul’ kind for the elect.”
They have no problem saying “Of course God wants no one to perish but He still predestined most people for hell.”
They have no problem saying “God controls everything, even the things we do, but He can still hold us accountable for what we do. We don’t have to understand it; we just have to accept it.”
They have no problem saying “God is love, therefore everything God does is love. Even sending people to hell, causing wars, giving someone cancer, sending a tornado to destroy a town. It’s all done out of love. And so we should be thankful for it!” (Yes, I really did read something just like this from a Calvinist. Incredible!)
You will never be able to “win” a debate against someone who won’t debate honestly and fairly – someone who accepts illogical and contradictory ideas as truth, who always hides most of what they really mean, who wraps the horrible foundational beliefs of their theology with many biblical-sounding layers, and who has double-meanings for all their words and all relevant Bible verses.
For example, they will say “Of course God wills that no one perishes.” And they might stop at that part, leaving you thinking they are biblically on-track. But what they really mean, and often keep hidden, is “But God has two Wills, you see. One is His revealed, common Will for all people, where He wants no one to perish. But He also has a ‘hidden’ one where He really wants only the elect to be saved and wants everyone else to perish for His pleasure and glory.” (And they think this still amounts to “God wills that no one perishes.”)
If you are not aware of the hidden layers under everything they say, you will not be able to debate with them because they will agree with you on one level, while conveniently hiding the deeper level. In fact, you probably won’t even be able to figure out what you’re really arguing about and what’s really wrong with what they are saying, because they will always make sure to only reveal the “right” part, to veil the terrible-sounding parts with as many layers as possible, only stripping them off if you push them more and more.
They say “For God so loved the world that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life,” but what they really mean is “Of course God loves everyone. He shows this by giving everyone food and water. Of course He wants everyone to be saved, but He can want one thing but will the opposite, that most people won’t be saved. And when it comes to salvation … For God so loved all of the elect that all the believing people (the “elected” ones who were predestined to believe) will not perish but have eternal life.”
You can’t argue with someone who has hidden multiple layers and double-meanings for everything.
And they will always have a half-Bible verse, taken out of context, to support everything they think. So they will always think their “truths” are grounded in the Word. In fact, they will “verse bomb” you, throwing many verses out at you, one after the other, in order to overwhelm you so that you simply give up and accept what they say. Because “surely anyone who has that much knowledge of the Bible and that many verses to back them up must be correct” … right!?!
They truly think that everything they believe is biblical and that they are humbly honoring God by clinging to those “truths.”
Honestly, there is no point debating a dogmatic Calvinist. (Did you ever read “Alice in Wonderland”? Yeah, Calvinism is about as logical as that!)
No wonder Jesus veiled the truth when speaking to the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, to those who don’t want to hear it and who will only attack it. Save your pearls, because they’ll just trample on them and then turn and tear you to pieces.
So true Heather….The Big Picture of Scripture is the issue
“The debate regarding Calvinism is NOT a debate about a few proof texts that Calvinists use it is a debate about how you read the entire narrative of Scripture. It’s a debate about how you read the entire story of God in scripture.” Dr. Walls
“God is most glorified NOT at the expense of His Creation BUT at the expense of Himself for the sake of His Creation as demonstrated on Calvary.” Dr. L.F.
OR
“When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.” Arthur Pink
Wonderful post Heather!
I especially like this quote
You can’t argue with someone who has hidden multiple layers and double-meanings for everything.
And they will always have a half-Bible verse, taken out of context, to support everything they think.
BTW : If you haven’t seen it yet – check out the post called: CALVINISM – AND THE BEAR IN THE WOODS
https://soteriology101.com/2019/04/15/rebuttal-of-john-pipers-articlea-beginners-guide-to-free-will%ef%bb%bf/#comment-35955
heather writes, “I think that right there is a fundamental flaw of Calvinism – always and only taking “one verse at a time,” losing sight of the overall message of the Bible and the overall truth of God’s character.”
The overall message of the Bible will agree with any truth found in a single verse. We start with one verse and determine what it says (e.g., without faith it is impossible to please God). We see if that understanding fits the immediate context, the context of the letter, and then the context of all other Scripture. Whether starting with the overall message of the Bible and working down to individual truths or starting with individual truths and working up to the overall message, the results will be the same.
However, the complaint against Calvinism is that it does not understand individual verses and has misunderstood the truth given, so given that your complaint is against Calvinism, you should start with the verses you see Calvinism misunderstanding. This fits what you said, “Which commenter is it who says “The Calvinist motto: Never waste a chance to take a half-verse out of context”?… So right on!” So, start with those half-verses and explain how the Calvinist errs. Support your claim that “they are forever picking and choosing “one verse at a time,” ignoring context and other verses that teach something different.”
Then, “They have no problem saying “Of course God said He loved the world. But He meant He has two kinds of love….”
Actually, the Calvinist says that the definition of “world” is the issue. It is not that God has two kinds of love but how God applies His love to people.
Then, “They have no problem saying “Of course God wants no one to perish but He still predestined most people for hell.””
I don’t think Calvinism says this. Unless God saves all people, He is willing for some to perish and wants that outcome since He does not exercise His power to save all people..
Then, ““God controls everything, even the things we do, but He can still hold us accountable for what we do.”
God necessarily is in control of everything – God is sovereign, The issue is God’s exercise of His control. God observes every sin committed by every person. God decides whether to prevent any of those sins, but He does not compel any person to sin – thus, people are rightly held accountable for his sin.
Then, “You will never be able to “win” a debate…”
when you, Heather, don’t accurately portray Calvinist doctrine. First, you argue from Pink that Calvinist say God does not love everyone. Then you argue that Calvinist say, .“Of course God wills that no one perishes.” You frame the argument so that only you can win.
Then, “They say “For God so loved the world that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life,” but what they really mean is “Of course God loves everyone.”
What they say is that God loves both Jew and gentile and whoever believes, whether Jew or gentile, will have eternal life.
Then, “And they will always have a half-Bible verse, taken out of context, to support everything they think.”
That’s your claim, but when challenged, you avoid dealing with those half-verses by saying, “I think that right there is a fundamental flaw of Calvinism – always and only taking “one verse at a time,” losing sight of the overall message of the Bible and the overall truth of God’s character.’ Why are you afraid to deal with alleged half-verses taken out of context??
Thank you BR.D. and Graceadict.
Br.d., I love the bear in the woods comment. The bear supports his “truth” by pointing out that he’s flapping his arms while in the air. It almost looks like flying, almost feels like flying, but it’s so not flying! But if he defines flying as “flapping your arms while you’re in the air,” then there’s no arguing with him. He who controls the definitions rules the debate! And I love the moral of the story: “When you’re engaged with a Calvinist – don’t be like the un-savvy birds. Scrutinize every term the Calvinist uses. More often than not – you will find he doesn’t have logic on his side – and a vast amount of the time he’s simply deploying a semantic trick – in which he equivocates on the meaning of a term or two.” So true! Tragically true!
Graceadict, About the quote by Pink: “When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.” I am amazed that people would hear this blatant lie laid out so clearly, and yet they would still choose to believe in Pink’s god, in Calvinism’s god, without questions or qualms. It’s sad and mind-boggling. But I do thank God that Calvinists like Pink are so hard-hearted that they would say what they mean outright, undisguised.
I picked up an RC Sproul book once, off the shelf in our church library, because our Calvinist pastor had highly recommended him (this is before I really understood that my pastor was a Calvinist and what Calvinism really was.) And I randomly opened up to a page. And the first words I saw were “Jesus did not die for everyone.” My eyes bugged out of my head, and I put the book right back on the shelf. (Although the trash is where it really belonged!) I seriously couldn’t believe that anyone would teach that as truth and that my pastor would support it. But I thank God for it, because it made it clear to me what Calvinism is really about. If only there were more Calvinists like Pink and Sproul and Cheung, there’d be a lot less people getting sucked into Calvinism.
heather writes, “I am amazed that people would hear this blatant lie laid out so clearly, and yet they would still choose to believe in Pink’s god,…”
For Pink, God exhibits His love by saving a person. If God does not save a person, then God does not love the person. So, if God has the power to save a person and then does not save the person, what good is it to say God’s loves the person?
Then, “…the first words I saw were “Jesus did not die for everyone.” My eyes bugged out of my head,…”
For Sproul, if Christ died for a person then necessarily, the person is saved. Otherwise, what does Christ’s death accomplish?
Rhutchin: “The overall message of the Bible will agree with any truth found in a single verse.”
Heather: Isaiah 30:1: “Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the Lord, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine.” (So man always carries out plans that are not God’s plans!?!)
Acts 14:16: “In the past, [God] let all nations go their own way.” (God always lets nations go their own way!?! He has no control over the nations!?!)
Genesis 1:26: “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion …'” (Oh, so MAN is in sovereign control over the earth!?!)
Psalm 8:6: “You have made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you have put everything under his feet:” (Wow! Everything!?! That must include God! So man is sovereign over God! The verse says it, so it must be true! Incredible!)
Jeremiah 19:4-5: “They have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods … They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offering to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” (God never fore-ordains what people do!?! Not looking so good for Calvinism so far!)
Job 12:6: “Those who provoke God are secure…” (Are they really!?!)
Job 9:13: “God does not restrain his anger…” (Never? Never ever? So God is always acting out in anger, always giving full vent to His anger, never acting in mercy? Wow, that’s a mighty big accusation to level against God, that He does not restrain His anger.)
Job 9:23: “… he mocks the despair of the innocent.” (Does He? Does He really? What kind of a monster God would that make Him?)
You can take just about any verse out of context, making it say something that doesn’t fit with the rest of the Bible. And Calvinists love to take verses that are not meant to be doctrinal statements and turn them into absolute doctrinal truth that supports Calvinism.
Rhutchin: “We start with one verse and determine what it says.”
Heather: Exactly the problem! Calvinists start with one verse and determine for themselves what it says. And when they make it Calvinistic enough, they super-impose it on the rest of Scripture.
Rhutchin: “So, start with those half-verses and explain how the Calvinist errs.”
Heather: It’s utterly pointless to do this with a dogmatic Calvinist. Pearls to pigs! (Hey, I didn’t come up with the illustration; Jesus did!) They have all those double meanings and hidden layers to work their way out of any corner, no matter how illogical and contradictory they have to be to do it. But they’re only fooling themselves. Until and unless they want to consider they might be wrong, there’s NO POINT in trying to reason with them to see it differently. You can’t rationally, logically converse with someone who refuses to be rational or logical!
Rhutchin: “God observes every sin committed by every person. God decides whether to prevent any of those sins”.
Heather: Translated into Calvi-speak that means “God actually ordains the sinful thoughts we have and causes us to carry out the sins we do, according to His predestined plans and for His glory.” (Wow, it’s amazing what gets lost in translation!)
Rhutchin: “Unless God saves all people, He is willing for some to perish and wants that outcome since He does not exercise His power to save all people…. If God does not save a person, then God does not love the person. So, if God has the power to save a person and then does not save the person, what good is it to say God’s loves the person? … If Christ died for a person then necessarily, the person is saved. Otherwise, what does Christ’s death accomplish?”
Heather: Hmm, let’s see that again with my comments in brackets:
“Unless God saves all people, He is willing for some to perish [So much for 2 Peter 3:9 about God not wanting anyone to perish!] and wants that outcome since He does not exercise His power to save all people….
If God does not save a person, then God does not love the person. [Calvinism: Deciding for itself that God’s love necessarily ends in forced salvation. So when salvation isn’t forced on someone, then they must not have been loved. And yet all this is built on the erroneous belief that salvation is forced to begin with, that God has predestined it and that man has no influence or choice about it.]
So, if God has the power to save a person and then does not save the person, what good is it to say God’s loves the person? [IF God has the power!?! So are you saying Calvi-god doesn’t have the power to save all people!?! Wow, Calvi-god must be weaker than we thought. So much for “all-powerful” and “totally sovereign”! And this is a great example of starting with one’s own philosophical musings, and then trying to mash it into the Bible. It’s so John Calvin!] …
If Christ died for a person then necessarily, the person is saved. [READ: So then if someone is not saved then Christ didn’t die for that person! So much for 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 John 2:2, Romans 5:12, Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 9:12, 1 Timothy 4:10… Oh that’s right, I forgot … in Calvinism, “all” doesn’t mean “all.” My bad! Let me get out my handy-dandy Calvinist permanent marker and correct all those verses to show what God really meant to say: “ONLY THE ELECT!” There, that’s better. Now I can see how Calvinism totally stays true to the Word!]
Otherwise, what does Christ’s death accomplish?” [Silly me, I thought that the Bible shows that Jesus’s death paid for all sins and bought salvation for all men, meaning that it’s available for all. But with a few simple swipes of my handy-dandy Calvinist permanent marker, I now see that His death paid for the sins of ONLY THE ELECT. And what did the rest of the people get? Conscious eternal torment! But, hey, at least it will bring Calvi-god some glory. So it’s all good! Thank you, handy-dandy Calvinist permanent marker! I don’t know what I’d do without you! (Ahh, just cracking myself up here. It’s good to laugh.)]
Thank you, Rhutchin! You’ve made my point for me!
Heather,
Two things quickly:
1. Listening to RH’s silly “every verse” statement (that anyone can see is how cults get started) has caused you to list some good examples there….for all our benefit. Thanks.
2. Why are you listening to him? Two years ago I did the same….falling for his “just show us” “where are we wrong” or outright goading “asleep in class.” Aint worth it. He would never change….since that would make him a universalists or semi-polynesian.
Most of my outright questions to him went unanswered. I am still waiting for a Calvinist to answer:
Can we do anything that is not God’s will?
If everything that happens exactly as God willed/ planned it?
FOH writes, ‘Can we do anything that is not God’s will?”
God gives people the freedom to disobey His law, so sin is not God’s will, but God has ordained that people sin. As God works all things together for good for His elect, even sin is ultimately His will.
Then, “If everything that happens exactly as God willed/ planned it?”
Ephesians 1 says, Yes. “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
FOH
Can we do anything that is not [Calvin’s] God’s will?”
rhutchin
God gives people the freedom to disobey His law,
br.d
Of course no one here is fooled by this half-truth.
Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT anyone to disobey his SECRET will
And when his ENUNCIATED will is the direct opposite of his SECRET will he does NOT PERMIT his ENUNCIATED will to falsify or negate his SECRET will.
rhutchin
so sin is not God’s will,
br.d
But of course this is Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
What the Calvinist HIDES here is that sin is not Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will.
But sin which comes to pass is most certainly Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
rhutchin
God has ordained that people sin.
br.d
DECREED every part of every sin – in minute and excruciating detail.
And does NOT PERMIT them to refrain from that sin – or escape any sin which he DECREES
So the simple ONE WORD answer to FOH’s question – “Can we do anything that is not [Calvin’s] god’s will?” is NO!
Let the record state…I can no longer say that a Calvinist has not answered my question:
—-Can we do anything that is not God’s will?—-
And here for all to see is the answer:
“God gives people the freedom to disobey His law, so sin is not God’s will, but God has ordained that people sin. As God works all things together for good for His elect, even sin is ultimately His will.”
Maybe I should not count this as answering my question….. since in the two sentence answer, exact opposite statements are made:
“so sin is not God’s will,”
“even sin is ultimately His will.”
Nah…. I can’t count that as an answer . Is the answer “no” or “yes”?
FOH
Nah…. I can’t count that as an answer . Is the answer “no” or “yes”?
br.d
In the Gnostic system of “Moral Dualism” pretty much everything appears in ANTITHETICAL pairs.
Augustine stated it this way:
-quote
In this way, the BEAUTY of all things is in a manner configured, as it were, from ANTITHESIS, that is, from OPPOSITES. This is pleasing to us even in discourse”. (ord 1.7.19)
That is why Calvinists are forced into a mindset of DOUBLE-THINK.
And how they can say YEA and NAY to the exact same question – without blinking.
rhutchin
The overall message of the Bible will agree with any truth found in a single verse.
br.d
That which the Calvinist HIDES – is *ALWAYS* 100 times more important than the little tid-bit he will reveal
He will CONSISTENTLY point to scripture while quietly omitting the fact that his argument hinges on a UNIQUE INTERPRETATION of it.
An INTERPRETATION that forces the text to say things it doesn’t EXPLICITLY say is a bad INTERPRETATION.
An INTERPRETATION that claims the Holy Spirit used a word which didn’t EXPLICITLY convey what the He really meant.
Where it is claimed the Holy Spirit meant a completely different word which He could have easily used but didn’t.
Is an INTERPRETATION that dishonors both the Holy Spirit and scripture.
Heather: Isaiah 30:1: “Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the Lord, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine.” (So man always carries out plans that are not God’s plans!?!)
Unsaved people always sin (the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.) and that is not God’s plan in giving His law. Yet, God works all things, even sin, together for good for His elect – the example of Joseph shows this.
Then, ‘Acts 14:16: “In the past, [God] let all nations go their own way.” (God always lets nations go their own way!?! He has no control over the nations!?!)”
God gave the nations the freedom to go their own way. God could have controlled the nations preventing this outcome but decreed not to do so.
Then, “Genesis 1:26: “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion …’” (Oh, so MAN is in sovereign control over the earth!?!)”
God gave Adam dominion over the earth but not over God. Adam was still subordinate to God.
Then, ‘Psalm 8:6: “You have made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you have put everything under his feet:” (Wow! Everything!?! That must include God! So man is sovereign over God! The verse says it, so it must be true! Incredible!)”
Everything refers back to the works of God’s hands. So, Adam was given dominion over the earth agreeing with Genesis.
Then, “Jeremiah 19:4-5: “They have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods … They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offering to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” (God never fore-ordains what people do!?! Not looking so good for Calvinism so far!)”
God ordained the actions of people. God did not command that people do evil, nor did it enter God’s mind to command them to do evil.
Then, “Job 12:6: “Those who provoke God are secure…” (Are they really!?!)”
In this life, Job observed that the evil are often secure in earthy treasure.
Then, “Job 9:13: “God does not restrain his anger…” (Never? Never ever? So God is always acting out in anger, always giving full vent to His anger, never acting in mercy? Wow, that’s a mighty big accusation to level against God, that He does not restrain His anger.)”
That God restrains His anger does not mean that He is always angry. The Scriptures speak of God’s anger in many places Another translation has “God will not withdraw His anger”
Then, ‘Job 9:23: “… he mocks the despair of the innocent.” (Does He? Does He really? What kind of a monster God would that make Him?) ”
That is what Job said, Job then asks, “If it is not He, who else could it be?” The answer is, No one – God is sovereign.
Then, “You can take just about any verse out of context, making it say something that doesn’t fit with the rest of the Bible. ”
Are you claiming that Calvinists take those verses out of context?? I suspect that even Calvinists read those verses in context with the rest of Scripture.
rhutchin
Unsaved people always sin (the carnal mind is enmity against God;
br.d
Don’t forget that -quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of Calvinists who are TOTALLY DEPRAVED and don’t know it
Because Calvin’s god handed salvation to them as a -quote “savor of condemnation”
Those Calvinists will always sin also – right?
To bad – all that constant sinning!
And Calvinists don’t have enough discernment to know when and who! :-]
Rh writes:
“God ordained the actions of people. God did not command that people do evil, nor did it enter God’s mind to command them to do evil.”
The truth is, to ordain is more controlling and more certain than to command. So really, all that this means is that God brings evil about by hidden determinations, while disingenuously saying with words, ‘Don’t do that’. (Wink, wink)
Even worse, after secretly engineering all evil, Calvi-god is going to blame and viciously punish those he (in whatever way you wish to propose) gave no other choice but to do as he had irresistibly ordained.
Rh writes:
“God ordained the actions of people. God did not command that people do evil, nor did it enter God’s mind to command them to do evil.”
br.d
RH is pretty crafty about how he words things.
Here we have the words “did not enter into God’s mind” which is an echo of the children of Israel throwing their children into the fire.
But the Calvinist can’t say them doing that didn’t enter into Calvin’s god’s mind – because he DECREED every microsecond of it.
So the wording “entered into his mind” is quite clever – how it swings over into “to command”…….a statement the Calvinist can say without lying.
What is lurking behind all of these clever language tricks is simply that Calvin’s god’ ENUNCIATED will doesn’t command sin or evil
Everyone already knows its Calvin’s god’s SECRET will that DETERMINES all sin and evil.
And doesn’t PERMIT the creature to disobey his SECRET will.
RH is very crafty indeed, subtle moves here and there, disguising what he is really saying..
Thanks BR.D for not letting him get away with it.
This is very educational
br.d writes, “Here we have the words “did not enter into God’s mind” which is an echo of the children of Israel throwing their children into the fire. But the Calvinist can’t say them doing that didn’t enter into Calvin’s god’s mind – because he DECREED every microsecond of it. So the wording “entered into his mind” is quite clever – how it swings over into “to command” A statement the Calvinist can say without lying.”
We have:
Jeremiah 19:4-5: “They have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods … They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offering to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”
Had such things entered God’s mind? We also read:
Leviticus 18:21 “You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord!”
Deuteronomy 12:30 “After they have been destroyed from your presence, be careful not to be ensnared like they are; do not pursue their gods and say, “How do these nations serve their gods? I will do the same.”
Deuteronomy 18:10 There must never be found among you anyone who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, anyone who practices divination, an omen reader, a soothsayer, a sorcerer,
So, we see that the practice of sacrificing children in fire was in God’s mind (but br.d refuses to acknowledge this). Thus, we have a question of context. What does God mean when He says, “nor did it enter my mind,” in Jeremiah. We can be sure that God is not speaking of the pagan religious practices of which God was aware and warned Israel about as not entering His mind. One option ito explain Jeremiah is that God says that it never entered His mind to command Israel to do this. br.d is free to offer a different option.
br.d
Here we have the words “did not enter into God’s mind” which is an echo of the children of Israel throwing their children into the fire. But the Calvinist can’t say them doing that didn’t enter into Calvin’s god’s mind – because he DECREED every microsecond of it. So the wording “entered into his mind” is quite clever – how it swings over into “to command” A statement the Calvinist can say without lying.”
rhutchin
We have:
Jeremiah 19:4-5: “They have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods … They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offering to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”
br.d
And we can see SUBTLE TWIST of difference between what that text says and your statement.
The Calvinist cannot say sins never enter into Calvin’s god’s mind because he specifically AUTHORS/DECREES every juicy detail and DOESN’T PERMIT the creature any escape.
rhutchin
Had such things entered God’s mind? We also read:….quoting more scriptures as if that makes any difference
So, we see that the practice of sacrificing children in fire was in God’s mind (but br.d refuses to acknowledge this).
br.d
You need to take a course in elementary school logic – if that’s your conclusion concerning br.d. :-]
rhutchin
Thus, we have a question of context. What does God mean when He says, “nor did it enter my mind,” ….etc
br.d
No need for all of that beating at the air with bible verses – everyone already knows “Mere” permission doesn’t exist in Calvinism.
In Calvinism all sin ORIGINATES in Calvin’s god’s mind.
He AUTHORS/DECREES every juicy detail – using creatures as PATSIES to commit them so that he can blame creatures for what he DECREES.
So obviously it “entered into Calvin’s god’s mind that they do so such a thing”.
And also the Calvinist can say “it did not enter into his mind TO COMMAND THEM” without telling a lie.
br.d writes, “No need for all of that beating at the air with bible verses ”
The Scriptures always flummox br.d.
br.d
No need for all of that beating at the air with bible verses ”
rhutchin
The Scriptures always flummox br.d.
br.d
Again with the reverse attribution! :-]
br.d writes, ‘Again with the reverse attribution!”
Yep, The Scriptures always flummox br.d.”
A few things I have observed and learned about Calvinism, first this is truly a Different Worldview at the Root level. At it’s root is Gnosticism but it has absorbed lots of Christian beliefs as well, so from afar it looks quite Christian. The Root system however is Gnostic even though much of the branches and leaves are Christian. Many people are drawn in by the superficial appearance of the branches and leaves BUT since the Root system is Gnostic…the Gnostic ideas keep coming through even at the branch and leaf level, and producing unchristian fruit. This is a classic example of Syncretism.
a.) EVIL -GOOD …. Root system Gnostic view
.Their worldview is comprised of an (evil-good) dualism, this complex has it’s origin in their god who is the source and the architect of the evil/good complex. He needs his evil-good dualism to be expressed in his creation. That is why it exists as it does.
b.) DETERMINISM……Gnostic “determinism” brought in to Christianity and “painted onto God”
Their worldview is a deterministic worldview, whether hard or soft determinism it all ends up at the same place. Everything that happens, will happen or has happened, was irresistibly determined, decreed, rendered-certain before the world began, this is done by meticulous control and direction of every single particle and synapse. Remember all this was done by their dualistic evil-good deity, so dualism will be reflected in the decrees and what actually happens. What their deity desires the MOST is what does happen.
c. ) GLORIFY….. Christian concept directed at a Gnostic dualistic, deterministic deity
This dualistic, deterministic deity who decrees and meticulously orchestrates every deed, ever done whether good or evil must be always praised / glorified for all of these deeds, for they all come from him (even the rape of a child or Hitler’s deeds) It is the creatures obligation to DECLARE all events as god glorifying whether good or evil.
Since they all came from the same deity ultimately they will be declare as good. Anything and everything that comes from this deity must be declared as “good”.
d.) TRUTH and SECRETS…..
Since this deity is a (good, evil complex- having two sides much like a coin) one must understand that his revealed word may only be highlighting one side of this good-evil complex. For instance his word may highlight the good ( he wants all to be saved) however, one must never forget this deity is a dualistic complex so while his word explicitly highlights a truth about him there is also a deeper truth, a secret will (the other side of the coin, the evil side of the complex ). This other side actually does desire something that blatantly contradicts the good side. This other side, more often than not, also wins out in which will ultimately be decreed, determined and meticulously made to happen. But you must remember, to DECLARE this as “good”.
e.) MYSTERY and HUMILITY……
The adherent to this system must be instructed to always keep in mind, anytime something does not make sense, it is NOT a fallacy, contradiction, error or false teaching it is a “mystery” a “paradox” a “tension”. Furthermore the adherent must be instructed that humility is found in simply accepting these things inspite of the profound discrepancies, this is said to be walking by faith.
The adherent is also instructed to verbally DECLARE the “good” side of the dualistic complex, while simultaneously holding to the evil, maybe even holding to the evil secretly just as their deity often does.
In fact the adherent comes to the place of declaring evil as good. For they both come from the same deity and whatever comes from this dualistic deity MUST always be LABELED as good. To overcome any discomfort remember “mystery and humility” will help you embrace this, plus…. WHO are you oh man to rage against this dualistic god? Is a huge help in overcoming any misgivings and calming your conscious.
“All praise and glory be to the evil-good god who determines, decrees and orchestrates every good and evil deed for his pleasure alone amen” says the Consistent and Unashamed Calvinist.
Wonderful post GraceAdict.
I especially liked your wording “meticulous control and direction of every single particle and synapse”
I do also note however that Calvinism’s syncretistic mixture also includes NeoPlatonism.
But its the Gnostic “good-evil” dualism that main-stream Christianity finds so controversial.
And I guess that’s to be expected – in that main-stream Christianity will view that aspect of Calvinism in contrast to Biblical Ethics.
Thanks BR.D
BR.D “I do also note however that Calvinism’s syncretistic mixture also includes NeoPlatonism.”
GA: What would you say are the primary NeoPlatonistic views that have been incorporated by the Calvinist?
Well, I think the “Determinism” element of Calvinism has its roots in NeoPlatonism.
NeoPlatonism was essentially the works of Plato framed into religious form. The NeoPlatonists called the deity the ONE. And believed that all things in the cosmos tend back towards the ONE. The NeoPlatonists also embraced the “Moral Dualism” we find in Gnosticism. They could call evil “beautiful”.
One of NeoPlatonism’s prominent teachers was Plotinus – and Augustine fell in love with his writings.
In their pursuit of tending back towards the ONE – they practiced a form of meditation.
Author, Stephen MacKenna in “The Influence Of Plotinus Traced In St. Augustine” observes within Augustine’s confessions, evidences of at least two mystical meditation experiences, which clearly follow the NeoPlatonic model. Mystic medication was a practice emphasized by the NeoPlatonist’s to aid the believer in becoming assimilated into the ONE. However Calvin didn’t carry that aspect of Augustine forward in his doctrines – probably because he knew it would be rejected.
Sparks Notes – on Augustine
-quote
Augustine’s lasting influence lies largely in his success in combining the Neoplatonic worldview with the Christian one. In Augustine’s hybrid system, the idea that all creation is good in as much as it exists, means that all creation, no matter how nasty or ugly, has its existence only in God. Because of this, all creation seeks to return to God, who is the purest and most perfected form of the compromised being enjoyed by individual things. Again, then, any story of an individual’s return to God is also a statement about the relationship between God and the created universe: namely, everything tends back toward God, its constant source and ideal form.”
You’ll recall that Calvinism places a supremely high emphasis on an IMMUTABLE deity.
This comes from the doctrines of Plato who developed what is called FULL DDI (doctrine of divine immutability)
Thanks…
I also understood from some sources that Augustine played in the Stoic party as well as Manichean…where they also believe in determinism and his determinism could come from that…what say you?
Yes in academia there are those who believe they see Augustine drawing on certain aspects of the Stoics.
One I remember is Sarah Catherine Byers – “Augustine’s debt to Stoicism in his confessions” .
It makes perfect sense as the Stoics were Theological Determinists – and they manifested the same psychological double-think we find with Calvinists. The *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
The Stoics had the same ethical problems that Calvinists have – since they believed everything is determined by a THEOS – that would have to include all sins and evils. And the Stoic was protective of his THEOS the exact same way the Calvinist is. So they had to find escape arguments to try to exculpate their THEOS from blame.
In Determinism everything occurs in causal chains. And each link in that chain leads back to an antecedent. When you trace it back you eventually find the source/origin is the THEOS. And the Stoics like Calvinists want to blame anything and everything rather than attribute sins and evils to their THEOS.
The Stoics tried to argue that somehow magically – when it came to sins and evil events – there was a break in that causal chain – and therefore the person and not the THEOS was to blame.
Rhutchin as you know kind of plays the same game – where he refuses to follow the causal chain back to its origin. Some attribute of domino #2 caused some attribute of domino #2 cause some attribute of domino #2 – and on into infinite regress. That’s rhutchin’s favorite strategy of escape. The closer the Calvinist gets to the source/origin the more terrified he becomes.
The Stoics had a little different trick – but the Calvinist and the Stoic are essentially working to escape the exact same thing.
br.d writes, “Rhutchin…refuses to follow the causal chain back to its origin. …The closer the Calvinist gets to the source/origin the more terrified he becomes.”
Calvinists, and I, readily admit that God started it all and is the cause of all things by His creation and then by His involvement in His creation.
Per Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” and “Then God said, “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.,” and “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Then, “I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?” and ‘The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.” and “Whatever the LORD pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places.”
br.d
Rhutchin…refuses to follow the causal chain back to its origin. …The closer the Calvinist gets to the source/origin the more terrified he becomes.”
rhutchin
Calvinists, and I, readily admit that God started it all and is the cause of all things by His creation and then by His involvement in His creation.
br.d
Sure! That explains:
An attribute of domino# 1 – caused an attribute of domino# 1 – caused an attribute of domino# 1 – into infinite regress :-]
What Rhutchin conveniently ignores is the very reason Nubuchadnezzar’s reason was taken from him in the first place. Was it not his pride and arrogance, his lofty claims to be essentially the ruler of the world that led to God putting him in his place? How unjust it would be for God to first determine that Nebuchadnezzar be unduly proud and then to punish him terribly for it. Just to make a demonstration, as if the people involved do not matter to God.
Of course, this is one of the heinous aspects of Calvinism, which denies God’s loving essence and affirms all manner of cruel, deceptive and unjust behavior on the part of God towards helpless men who are mere patsies in his program. This is an utter lie, which scripture lays bare again and again, as it shows God responding to man’s rebellion and wickedness, rather than causing it.
….but wait TS00, there’s more!
“…. for God to first determine that Nebuchadnezzar be unduly proud and then to punish him terribly for it. Just to make a demonstration…”
even if that silly idea were true…..we would still have to ask “make a demonstration” for what purpose?
Would that be so that Nebuchadnezzar would learn from his mistakes?
Would that be so that others can learn from his mistakes?
Nope…. in Calvinism we do not learn from others and then choose wisely (one of two more choices) since there are no real choices anyway, just the one baked-in-from-before-time option that God orchestrates.
I am only taking the time to write this out so that other wanna-be Calvinists will realize what their position leads to.
FOH, that is why I use the term ‘demonstration’, because for the Calvinist, nothing can really persuade, warn, challenge or lead anyone to make a ‘better’ choice. Each choice is set in stone, supposedly because God’s omniscient foreknowledge requires divine determination.
Thus, all of God’s warnings and punishments are not loving discipline designed to lead men to truth and wisdom, but merely egocentric demonstrations of his raw power, designed to do nothing but show who is boss. This is much of what makes Calvinism so hopeless. Real men and women, who find themselves in real, desperate situations cannot hope that this is merely God’s discipline upon them, intended to move them in a better direction.
No, one must simply endure what God has irresistibly ordained, be it addiction, marital unfaithfulness or a life of selfishness. The Calvinist, if consistent, will be forced to admit that ‘There is nothing I can do about it’ and ‘I can only hope that God’s plan for me gets better somewhere along the line.’ It is tragic, hopeless and leads ultimately to despair.
Exactly.
Calvinism, taken to its logical end can only have the Calvinist lying in bed at the end of a day saying, “Thank-you God for all that you ordained me to do today, good deeds and bad. For your glory and by your decree, I was kind to my friends, gave to a charity, read my Bible and looked at pornography.”
Is that accurate Calvinist friends?
FOH
Calvinism, taken to its logical end can only have the Calvinist lying in bed at the end of a day saying, “Thank-you God for all that you ordained me to do today, good deeds and bad. For your glory and by your decree, I was kind to my friends, gave to a charity, read my Bible and looked at pornography.”
Is that accurate Calvinist friends?
br.d
And then comes Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
Where the Calvinist will claim that there was an ESCAPE for him from that sin – which Calvin’s god just happened to IMMUTABILITY DECREE. Yea-right! *AS-IF* that is RATIONAL!
That’s what I meant when I posted to rhutchin that Calvinism turns scripture into a contorted pretzel.
And his response was “Calvinist’s apply logic to scripture”
Yea-right! And monkeys can create square circles!
What a utter waste of time it is to argue with them over scripture! :-]
I fluctuate between anger at the distortions and trickery and grief for those who have been sucked into the whole mess. Brings to mind Paul’s comment concerning enemies for the sake of the gospel, but beloved as individuals whom God loves.
TS00 – I share your frustration; because Calvinism incorporates many false teachings Calvinism must be hated while having compassion for those deceived by it, at the same time resisting those who knowingly spread this distortion of who God is.
A few quotes from Tozer that highlight the importance of seeing God’s character as accurately as possible:
A.W.Tozer
“Without doubt, the mightiest thought the mind can entertain is the thought of God, and the weightiest word in any language is its word for God.”
“The most important thing about us is what comes to our minds when we think about God”
“When adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly kind.”
“We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God.”
My hatred of this distortion is because it profanes the holy, loving, merciful name of God. It profanes His Moral Character. Then to cover their tracks they tack on “But this is what glorifies God”. A statement to convince themselves as much as it is to sway others into their deceptive path.
I have come to absolutely hate this deceptive, God dishonoring system.
I resist the proponents
I have compassion for the deceived
FOH
Nope…. in Calvinism we do not learn from others and then choose wisely (one of two more choices) since there are no real choices anyway, just the one baked-in-from-before-time option that God orchestrates.
br.d
Excellent point FOH!
What point is there?
It certainly won’t change any of man’s behaviors since a human can’t have a behavior that Calvin’s god doesn’t DECREE.
The only LOGICAL reason we are left with is that Calvin’s god takes pleasure in punishing people for the things he DECREES
FOH writes, “Nope…. in Calvinism we do not learn from others and then choose wisely (one of two more choices)…”
In Calvinism, one learns from God and then chooses wisely. It’s from John 6. and apparently, one of the verses you cut out of your Bible.
rhutchin
In Calvinism, one learns from God and then chooses wisely.
br.d
Actually in Calvinism there is no such thing as multiple options (which exist as real) set before the Calvinist for him to choose from.
Calvin’s god pre-determines every choice the Calvinist will make FOR THE CALVINIST.
The only option which exists as REAL for the Calvinist to choose – is that one single option Calvin’s god determined.
As Peter Van Inwagen states:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
Calvinists may have the ILLUSION they choose and perhaps choose “wisely”
But Calvin’s god makes EVERY choice – including the Calvinist’s SINFUL choices
A SINFUL choice would obviously not be considered “wise”.
Therefore the Calvinist has no way of knowing whether the choices Calvin’s god makes him choose are “wise” or not.
br.d writes, “As Peter Van Inwagen states:
-quoteDeterminism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future. ‘
Under Determinism, all events are the effects of causes and each cause produces one unique effect – thus, at any instant *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
Under Calvinism, God has perfect understanding of all causes thereby knowing their effects – thus, at any instant *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
Are you proposing that an event can happen without a preceding cause?
br.d
“As Peter Van Inwagen states:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future. ‘
Calvinists may have the ILLUSION they choose and perhaps choose “wisely”
But Calvin’s god makes EVERY choice – including the Calvinist’s SINFUL choices
A SINFUL choice would obviously not be considered “wise”.
Therefore the Calvinist has no way of knowing whether the choices Calvin’s god makes him choose are “wise” or not.
rhutchin
Under Determinism, all events are the effects of causes and each cause produces one unique effect – thus, at any instant *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
br.d
This statement is pretty much a re-iteration of Van Inwagen’s – so nothing necessary to respond to there.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, God has perfect understanding of all causes thereby knowing their effects – thus, at any instant *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
br.d
This statement is a non-sequitur
“understanding” is not a NECESSARY condition of – and is therefore superfluous to determinism.
Calvin’s god can determine what he wills – and the LOGICAL consequence will be *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
“understanding” may be contributive – but it is not LOGICALLY NECESSARY.
So it is superfluous to the consequence.
rhutchin
Are you proposing that an event can happen without a preceding cause?
br.d
Did you derive that assumption from my statements concerning:
“Calvinists may have the ILLUSION they can choose and choose “wisely”?
If so your question is a non-sequitur.
I suggest you read my statements regarding that and try to understand the LOGIC of it.
But I suspect your mind won’t allow that for emotional reasons.
br.d writes, “Did you derive that assumption from my statements concerning:”
No, it was from your statement, “Calvin’s god can determine what he wills – and the LOGICAL consequence will be *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.”
br.d
Calvin’s god can determine what he wills – and the LOGICAL consequence will be *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
“understanding” may be contributive – but it is not LOGICALLY NECESSARY. So it is superfluous to the consequence.
rhutchin
Are you proposing that an event can happen without a preceding cause?
br.d
I have no idea how you would draw that conclusion from my statement above. As I’ve stated all to often – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) everything comes to pass by a CAUSE & EFFECT (CAUSAL chain) – in which Calvin’s god is the Primary CAUSE.
But that is superfluous to my statement that in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god can determine what he wills – and the LOGICAL consequence will be *EXACTLY ONE* physically possible future.
So again “understanding” may be contributive – but it is not LOGICALLY NECESSARY.
But the DECREE is.
br.d writes, “As I’ve stated all to often – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) everything comes to pass by a CAUSE & EFFECT (CAUSAL chain) – in which Calvin’s god is the Primary CAUSE.”
So, do you think that an event can happen without a preceding cause?
Then, “So again “understanding” may be contributive – but it is not LOGICALLY NECESSARY. But the DECREE is.”
Ephesians 1 tells us, “God who works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” God works (or decrees) based on the counsel (His understanding) of His will (His purpose). Without understanding, there can be no counsel and without counsel, there can by no works (or decrees).
br.d
As I’ve stated all to often – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) everything comes to pass by a CAUSE & EFFECT (CAUSAL chain) – in which Calvin’s god is the Primary CAUSE.”
rhutchin
So, do you think that an event can happen without a preceding cause?
br.d
Not in Theological Determinism.
And again “understanding” may be contributive – but it is not LOGICALLY NECESSARY.
But the DECREE is.”
rhutchin
Ephesians 1 tells us, “God who works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” God works (or decrees) based on the counsel (His understanding) of His will (His purpose). Without understanding, there can be no counsel and without counsel, there can by no works (or decrees).
br.d
Now your conflating Calvinism with scripture – and I would never make such a silly mistake.
It turns scripture into IRRATIONAL DOUBLE-SPEAK.
And that’s simply an abuse of scripture.
I agree that error arises when one conflates any one interpretation of scripture, such as Calvinism, with the true meaning of scripture.
rhutchin writes:
“Ephesians 1 tells us, “God who works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” God works (or decrees) based on the counsel (His understanding) of His will (His purpose). ”
This, of course, is simply his interpretation of these words, determined by his presuppositions. My own presuppositions arise from countless scriptures that have God interacting with man, disapproving of his behavior, punishing his rebellions, etc.. Thus, I read “God who works (harnesses) all things according to the counsel (directives) of His will (desired goal)…” God neither originates the wickedness and chaos that takes place upon earth, nor does he helplessly view the free choices of men as if they might somehow derail his ultimate will to have a freely chosen, loving relationship with his creation that contains no sin or evil.
This is a viable interpretation, which does not demand that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, but can put to use whatsoever comes to pass – obedience or disobedience, good or evil – in order to accomplish his ultimate desire, which is to bring all things (that are willing) back to restoration, without using coercive actions, and to at some set day remove all that remains opposed to his good and perfect will.
rhutchin: “Ephesians 1 tells us, “God who works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” God works (or decrees) based on the counsel (His understanding) of His will (His purpose). ”
TS00: “his, of course, is simply his interpretation of these words, determined by his presuppositions.”
Fine, How about explaining how you think (1) God can counsel Himself without understanding or (2) how God’s purpose has nothing to do with His will, or (3) How God’s counsel can ignore His will.
rhutchin: “Ephesians 1 tells us, “God who works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” God works (or decrees) based on the counsel (His understanding) of His will (His purpose). ”
TS00: “his, of course, is simply his interpretation of these words, determined by his presuppositions.”
Fine, How about explaining how you think (1) God can counsel Himself without understanding or (2) how God’s purpose has nothing to do with His will, or (3) How God’s counsel can ignore His will.
br.d
The Non-Calvinist answer is simple.
The Calvinist is ensnared with *UNIVERSAL* divine causal determinism and imposes it on scripture
The Non-Calvinist god doesn’t AUTHOR every micro-second – and every micro-attribute of the creature.
The ironic part about this is the Calvinist claims this EXPLICITLY and then spends the rest of his time fabricating FACADES on IN-determinism. So he ends up answering his own question.
rhutchin: “So, do you think that an event can happen without a preceding cause?”
br.d: “Not in Theological Determinism.”
So, do you think that an event can happen without a preceding cause?
rhutchin
So, do you think that an event can happen without a preceding cause?
br.d
Empirical evidence indicates that most things happen due to an antecedent cause
But that doesn’t LOGICALLY entail Universal Divine Causal Determinism – in which the THEOS is ALWAYS the CAUSE of everything without exception.
rhutchin: “So, do you think that an event can happen without a preceding cause?”
br.d: “Empirical evidence indicates that most things happen due to an antecedent cause”
Most, if not all. The issue is whether a sovereign God who is truly sovereign is responsible.
Then, “But that doesn’t LOGICALLY entail Universal Divine Causal Determinism – in which the THEOS is ALWAYS the CAUSE of everything without exception.”
Another in a long line of bold claims made without a supporting argument.
rhutchin
So, do you think that an event can happen without a preceding cause?”
br.d
Empirical evidence indicates that most things happen due to an antecedent cause”
rhutchin
Most, if not all. The issue is whether a sovereign God who is truly sovereign is responsible.
br.d
Yes – we can see Calvin’s god needs an army of defense attorneys to keep him from bearing responsibility for what he CAUSES.
But in regard to things happening per cause and effect – that doesn’t LOGICALLY entail Universal Divine Causal Determinism – in which the THEOS is ALWAYS the CAUSE of everything without exception.
rhutchin
Another in a long line of bold claims made without a supporting argument.
br.d
To funny!
After that statement – we simply watch – and observe the Calvinist dedicated to painting mask of IN-determinism over the face of the system. And that of course serves as a RED-FLAG that they try to fabricate the very things they claim to reject – or in this case call unsupported.
Its also fun to watch! :-]
br.d writes, “But in regard to things happening per cause and effect – that doesn’t LOGICALLY entail Universal Divine Causal Determinism – in which the THEOS is ALWAYS the CAUSE of everything without exception.”
Whether God, because He is sovereign, is the cause of all things is doubtful to you, but there is one situation in which we know that God is the cause – that of salvation, That is affirmed by Jesus when He said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” In the end, salvation is the key issue.
br.d
But in regard to things happening per cause and effect – that doesn’t LOGICALLY entail Universal Divine Causal Determinism – in which the THEOS is ALWAYS the CAUSE of everything without exception.”
rhutchin
Whether God, because He is sovereign, is the cause of all things is doubtful to you, but there is one situation in which we know that God is the cause – that of salvation, That is affirmed by Jesus when He said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” In the end, salvation is the key issue.
br.d
Well – since Augustine mixed Gnostic/NeoPlatonic doctrine into his system – and Calvin in unquestioning adoration for the man swallowed the camel whole – we can readily observe the Gnostic cosmology of “Dualism” in which its THEOS is not just “good” he is “Good-Evil”.
And that is why so many things in Calvinism – including its interpretation of scripture – will always appear in “Good-Evil” pairs.
And why Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of both good and evil.
And why Calvinist’s have a love-hate relationship with their own doctrine – and both affirm and deny it at the same time.
Hence Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK and its outward expression DOUBLE-SPEAK
It all makes perfect sense when one learns to recognize its Gnostic component of “Dualism”.
rhutchin: …God is the cause – that of salvation, That is affirmed by Jesus when He said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” In the end, salvation is the key issue.
br.d: …Augustine mixed Gnostic/NeoPlatonic doctrine into his system…It all makes perfect sense when one learns to recognize its Gnostic component of “Dualism”.
I quote the Scriptures and br.d recognizes the truth of that Scripture. So, he goes off on a tirade about Gnostic/NeoPlatonic doctrine. What was the point of br.d’s argument with regard to John 6:37? Does anyone understand what br.d is saying about 6:37?
Round and round and round he goes, always back to the same question-begging statements. The assertion that God is the cause of salvation is simply backdooring around to the main difference between Calvinism and most other christian belief systems.
Few would question that God ’caused’ creation to exist, with no input or response from anything outside of himself. There are other things which fall into this category, all involving non-moral choices made by God. This sort of causation is entirely different from that of sin and salvation.
For to assert that salvation is the same sort of monergistic creation as the sun, moon and stars is to assert that sin is as well. Which brings one to the fact that, under determinism, all things, whatsoever they be, are the direct result of the desires, choices and will of God. All things come unavoidably, irresistibly to pass, and no man or beast can resist God’s predetermined plan by one iota.
This is, of course, what non-Calvinists reject. They deny that God ordained, caused and brought into existence sin, by his own desire and choice. They assert the scriptural explanation that man was created in the image of God, and given dominion over the earth. That means the ability and freedom to make independent (limited, of course, to as independent as dependent beings can make) choices.
This is not new territory. This is what is and has been discussed here, from every conceivable angle, day in and day out.
‘Does God cause sin and evil?’
‘Can man genuinely oppose and rebel against God’s wishes?’
‘Why does evil exist?’
‘If Universalism is rejected, then why are some saved and others not?’
On and on goes the variety of expressions of essentially the same question:
‘Does God deterministically originate and cause whatsoever comes to pass within his creation?’
One cannot separate ‘salvation’ and suggest that this, independent of other things, can at least be accredited to God alone. This ignores the question of what salvation is, what man is being saved from, and how such a salvation takes place.
The Calvinist likes to accuse non-Calvinists of thinking they can save themselves. This is untrue, for the vast majority of christians, certainly all that I have ever come into contact with. It is only under Calvinism that the concept of ‘salvation’ becomes almost absurd. Salvation from what? If God causes all things, then he could have omitted whatever he caused men to need saving from.
This is why Calvinism prefers to ignore the reality of what men need saving from, which is the wrath of God. And why would any man be in danger of the wrath of God, if indeed he was unable to do anything other than what God himself chose and determined should and would come to pass? Determinism makes a mockery of all things. If true, ‘Because God determined it’ is all one ever need say.
Why did man sin? Because God determined it.
Why did Adam eat the forbidden fruit? Because God determined it.
Why did Cain kill Abel? Because God determined it.
Why did the earth become filled with violence? Because God determined it.
Why did Noah and his family alone avoid this violence? Because God determined it.
Why did people sacrifice their children to false gods? Because God determined it.
Why did Egypt enslave Israel (before they were Israel)? Because God determined it.
Why did sin arise, demanding the need for forgiveness and salvation? Because God determined it.
On and on it goes. Under Calvinism, there is nothing that ever was, is or will be that one cannot put the question ‘Why did this happen?’ to and arrive at the one and only answer: Because God determined it.
Other thoughtful people have come to realize that such a simplistic explanation makes no logical or moral sense. If God determined it, then he is responsible for it. There can be no sin, if man does what God determined. There is no explanation for wrath, if man does what God determined. There is no need for salvation, if man does what God determined.
Nothing about scripture’s depiction of sin, evil, wrath, salvation, love and future hope makes any sense under determinism. It is only if and when one accepts that God allowed inferior, dependent creatures the freedom to make the choice to rebel against his will – and there is only one good and perfect will of God – that sin, evil, death, salvation, redemption, new heavens and new earth make any sense. All would not have needed to exist had man not had the freedom to resist and reject God’s ways.
Anything apart from this basic application of logic to scripture leaves one open to endless confusion and deception. Man can concoct endless clever theories about who God is, what atonement means, what salvation means, what new birth means, and so on.
Most are simply clever attempts to avoid the personal responsibility each individual has to choose his ways. Each mentally competent person is without excuse, as God has made it known who he is and what he demands. It is pretty simple to understand that putting self first will always lead to the mistreatment of others, which is the essence of sin. Love is putting self aside, and counting others as equally deserving. Should we learn to do this, there would be no evil.
Satan has done his best to sow misconceptions, faulty definitions and outright lies throughout the creation, and most particularly within those institutions that serve to instruct and lead men to God. We were indeed warned that such global deception would overtake this world; so great that almost no one would escape it.
We should not be surprised that our thinking needs to be reset, and our unchallenged preconceptions re-examined. Going back to the Reformation is not going back far enough. Looking to the earliest church Fathers is a tad better, but is still looking to mere, imperfect men. It is God’s glorious gift to men that should we desire it, his very Spirit will come to our aid, guiding us, teaching us and slowly bringing us out of our very great darkness.
This ‘salvation’ will not happen to us against our will. God does not unilaterally install new software to fix bugs that he would have had to afflicted us with. There are no renegade hackers in a deterministic world.
So, that’s a long way of saying, ‘No, God does not cause salvation apart from the freely chosen need for it and the freely chosen acceptance of it by creatures who were not robotically programmed to carry out their misdeeds, but who independently rebelled against God and did other than he wished, necessitating the unfortunate suffering and death of the only non-rebel ever born.’
In this selfless offering we find our only and most assured hope, indeed our very salvation from the coming wrath of God.
TS00 writes, “The assertion that God is the cause of salvation is simply backdooring around to the main difference between Calvinism and most other christian belief systems.”
Yes, Calvinists take John 6:37 at face value, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” Others just ignore it.
Then, “Few would question that God ’caused’ creation to exist,…This sort of causation is entirely different from that of sin and salvation. ”
According to His infinite understanding, God had perfect knowledge of all future events, including all sin and salvation, when He created the universe. By God’s understanding and knowledge, all was rendered certain – determined – at creation. God even knew those He would give to Christ.
Then, “Which brings one to the fact that, under determinism, all things, whatsoever they be, are the direct result of the desires, choices and will of God.”
That is why Ephesians 1 says, “…according to the counsel of His will…”
Then, “This is, of course, what non-Calvinists reject.”
They reject John 6:37, Ephesians 1:11, among other verses.
Then, “So, that’s a long way of saying, ‘No, God does not cause salvation apart from the freely chosen need for it and the freely chosen acceptance of it by creatures who were not robotically programmed to carry out their misdeeds, but who independently rebelled against God and did other than he wished, necessitating the unfortunate suffering and death of the only non-rebel ever born.’ ”
That’s pretty much what Calvinism says. Calvinism just adds that God understood all this before He created the universe.
As Heather would say, ‘Hogwash’.
If any Calvinists said such a thing, it just proves how deceptive their doublespeak truly is, for it is the exact opposite of what their system entails.
Let’s just point out some of the ways Calvinism diverts from my quote:
“So, that’s a long way of saying, ‘No, God does not cause salvation apart from the freely chosen need for it and the freely chosen acceptance of it by creatures who were not robotically programmed to carry out their misdeeds, but who independently rebelled against God and did other than he wished, necessitating the unfortunate suffering and death of the only non-rebel ever born.’ ”
1) Calvinism cannot affirm a freely chosen need for salvation. It was made necessary by God’s decree to bring evil into this world and his decision that men would pursue wickedness and his decision to punish them, even though they were only doing what they were predetermined by him to do.
2) Calvinism cannot affirm freely chosen acceptance of salvation, as they assert it is forced upon a select few irresistibly by God. There is no freely choosing, only a passive receipt of an unsought gift of faith which irresistibly leads to salvation.
3) Calvinism cannot affirm that men were not robotically programmed to carry out their misdeeds, for that is exactly what determinism entails, however much they prefer to deny it.
4) Calvinism cannot affirm that men independently rebelled against God, for their system asserts that God cursed them with a sin nature that compelled them to rebel against God.
5) Calvinism cannot affirm that men did other than God wished, for no thought, word or deed of any man ever occurs that God did not both wish, ordain and bring to pass.
So, no, that’s not what Calvinism pretty much ‘says’ [demands]; it is simply what doublespeaking, deceptive Calvinists say, even though it contradicts everything Calvinism demands, in order to appear biblical and to hide the hideous implications of their system from the masses.
TS00 writes, “1) Calvinism cannot affirm a freely chosen need for salvation. ”
That is because faith is required for a “freely chosen need for salvation.” Without faith, no one desires salvation. As Paul says, “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?…So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Then, “It was made necessary by God’s decree to bring evil into this world and his decision that men would pursue wickedness and his decision to punish them, even though they were only doing what they were predetermined by him to do.”
It was only by God’s decree that Satan could enter the garden. God observed all that happened in the garden and did nothing to help Eve and then Adam. They freely ate the fruit because they wanted to eat the fruit and were justly punished.
Then, “as they assert it is forced upon a select few irresistibly by God. There is no freely choosing, only a passive receipt of an unsought gift of faith which irresistibly leads to salvation.”
This explained by Jesus in John 3, ““Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Then, “Calvinism cannot affirm that men were not robotically programmed to carry out their misdeeds, for that is exactly what determinism entails, however much they prefer to deny it.”
This explained by Paul in Romans 8, “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.”
Then, “[the Calvinist] system asserts that God cursed them with a sin nature that compelled them to rebel against God.”
This explained in many Scriptures, including Ephesians, “Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh…that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” and “[believers] were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”
Then, “no thought, word or deed of any man ever occurs that God did not both wish, ordain and bring to pass.”
In Colossians, “God qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,” and “by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” and “This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.”
RH seems to forget his system at times in trying to make his system appear softer and kinder than it really is:
Within the Calvinist paradigm anything carnal, evil, rebellion, rape, Hitler’s deeds comes from what? Divine Causation
Piper – Desiring God Website “Permission, then, is a form of ordination, a form of causation.”
“… God’s permission is as efficacious as his ordination.”
John Calvin:
“It is vain to debate about prescience, (foreknowledge) which it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment” Bk 3 chap 23 para 6
“Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” Bk 1 chap 16 para 3
John Calvin:
“The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree.” “And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.. Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 7
John Calvin:
“We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition, rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others.” Bk 3 chap 21 para 5
A. Pink Calvinist
Pink….. God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass; then he must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire.”
Pink…..”Reprobation is before the person cometh into the world, or hath done good or evil.”
“Predestination is the eternal decreement of God, purposed before in himself, what should befall all men, either to salvation, or damnation”
….”God’s eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed.”
Piper -Desiring God website:
… we should not assume, as Arminians do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination. What God permits or allows to happen will happen.
Permission, then, is a form of ordination, a form of causation.”
“… God’s permission is as efficacious as his ordination.”
Within the Calvinist paradigm anything carnal, evil, rebellion comes from what? Divine Causation…God IS the Author of Evil for the Calvinist
GraceAdict. writes, “Within the Calvinist paradigm anything carnal, evil, rebellion comes from what? Divine Causation…God IS the Author of Evil for the Calvinist”
This means that God is the final arbiter (or author) of all that happens and nothing happens unless He says it is to happen. It does not mean that God forces, coerces, or compels people to do evil but that He decrees that people be free to do the evil they desire with God having determined that evil to be necessary to His purpose. That Joseph’s brothers can sell Joseph into slavery, the Assyrians can invade Israel, and the Jews and Romans can conspire to crucify Jesus.
rhutchin
[In Calvinism] This means that God is the final arbiter (or author) of all that happens and nothing happens unless He says it is to happen.
br.d
Its wisdom to know – a large percentage of Calvinist arguments are subtly designed with some SEMANTIC trick – in which a term or phrases is designed to strategically mislead.
For an example of a SEMANTIC argument see
“Calvinism and the bear in the woods”
https://soteriology101.com/2019/04/15/rebuttal-of-john-pipers-articlea-beginners-guide-to-free-will%ef%bb%bf/#comment-35955
We must also remember that the Calvinist has a love-hate relationship with Determinism – which incorporates *AS-IF* thinking.
Here we have the “final arbiter”
This statement is strategically designed to INFER – Calvin’s god is not the SOLE determiner/arbiter of everything without exception.
In other words it is TRUE that he leaves NOTHING for the creature to determine/arbitrate *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
Thus we can see – understanding Calvinism is pretty straight forward:
A Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
I just copied this from the Desiring God website to me this statement highlights what the Calvinist Dilemma is:
“Our language must not compromise either God’s FULL SOVEREIGNTY or His HOLINESS and GOODNESS.”
1. Full Sovereignty – Cannot allow God to slip from being Absolute determiner of every single event all the time, even atoms.
2. Holiness – Prove that He is Holy all the time (Even though the vast majority of events are unholy) BUT #1, Insists on us affirming God caused those events.
3. Goodness – Prove that God is Good all the time (Even though the vast majority of events are evil) BUT #1 Insists on us affirming that God caused those events.
When they redefine Sovereignty to mean “meticulous divine determinism” they back themselves into a corner that forces them to come up with create WORD games. The simple solution is realize that in the Bible Sovereignty is NOT determinism (hard or soft). So in the end they are willing to comprise #2 and #3 so that they can say God is Determining All things. #1.
The Calvinist Worldview goes wrong right at the base, a wrong definition for Sovereign… The Root of Calvinism is an error no wonder so many fruit on the Calvinist tree are mixed with the same poison. It is coming up from the root…if the root is unholy what can you expect.
Wonderful post GraceAdict!
Yes – Calvinist language is all about HIDING its dark components – or PAINTING a mask over them to make them APPEAR acceptable :-]
GraceAdict writes, “The Calvinist Worldview goes wrong right at the base, a wrong definition for Sovereign… ”
What, in your view, is a correct definition of Sovereignty?
br.d writes, “You’ll recall that Calvinism places a supremely high emphasis on an IMMUTABLE deity. This comes from the doctrines of Plato…”
Actually, it comes from Malachi, ““For I am the LORD, I do not change;…” and James, ‘Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”
Maybe, you could exegete these verses for us.
br.d
You’ll recall that Calvinism places a supremely high emphasis on an IMMUTABLE deity. This comes from the doctrines of Plato…”
rhutchin
Actually, it comes from Malachi, ““For I am the LORD, I do not change;…” and James, ‘Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”
Maybe, you could exegete these verses for us.
br.d
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
In Republic II (381b-c), Plato argued for the *FULL* DDI.
A changeless God may be found in a seasoning of verses in scripture – but the scripture holds things in balance – unlike Calvinism which puts so much emphasis on it – it makes Calvin’s god the author of evil. So much for conflating scripture with Calvinism.
rhutchin: Maybe, you could exegete these verses for us.
br.d: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
In Republic II (381b-c), Plato argued for the *FULL* DDI. ”
LOL!! Only br.d could think that one exegetes Scripture by quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He could, at least, quote that which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the verses in question. Couldn’t he???
br.d: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
In Republic II (381b-c), Plato argued for the *FULL* DDI. ”
hutchin
LOL!! Only br.d could think that one exegetes Scripture by quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He could, at least, quote that which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the verses in question. Couldn’t he???
br.d
I’m happy to let SOT101 readers discern for themselves – LOGIC in response to this.
But I can understand why that’s not something the Calvinist can do. :-]
br/d writes, “But I can understand why that’s not something the Calvinist can do.”
The Calvinist combines Scripture with logic. br.d runs away from Scripture and runs to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Perhaps the solution is to do as the Calvinist,: take the truth of Scripture and apply the rules of logic to that truth. Is br.d afraid oft he truth?
br.d
But I can understand why that’s not something the Calvinist can do.”
rhutchin
The Calvinist combines Scripture with logic.
br.d
And you say I make claims!
How many times have I suggested you take a course in elementary logic – to some of the simplest fallacies?
rhutchin
br.d runs away from Scripture and runs to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Perhaps the solution is to do as the Calvinist,: take the truth of Scripture and apply the rules of logic to that truth. Is br.d afraid oft he truth?
br.d
Well rhutchin – as you’ve multiple times asserted your “so called” logic superior to William Lane Craig’s and superior to Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s – its pretty easy to see what kind of logic that is. :-]
But hey – we are thankful for Calvinist posts.
They allow SOT101 readers to discern and dissect Calvinism’s skill at subtle language tricks, *AS-IF* thinking, and smuggling in camouflaged form those things the doctrine rejects. And all the examples of double-speak are very helpful also. So it all works out for the good.
br.d writes, “Well rhutchin – as you’ve multiple times asserted your “so called” logic superior to William Lane Craig’s and superior to Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s – its pretty easy to see what kind of logic that is.”
br.d runs everywhere except to the Scriptures. When has anyone seen br.d deal with the Scriptures or support his claims with the Scriptures?
GraceAdict writes, “A few things I have observed and learned about Calvinism, first this is truly a Different Worldview at the Root level.”
LOL!!! Here we have GA’s opinion piece. Maybe, you could address the Scriptures (like br.d – LOL!!!) at some time.
Wowser, GA, you hit that one out of the ball park!
Rh writes:
“God ordained the actions of people. God did not command that people do evil, nor did it enter God’s mind to command them to do evil.”
TSOO —The truth is, to ordain is more controlling and more certain than to command.
That is a very insightful comment TS00 – thanks for pointing that out. Calvinist pop back and forth between similar words to evade what they really believe.
TS00 writes, “this means is that God brings evil about by hidden determinations, while disingenuously saying with words, ‘Don’t do that’. (Wink, wink) ”
Everyone knows that the minute God gave Israel the Ten Commandments, He knew (Wink, wink) that they would disobey. This despite His promise to reward those who obeyed and curse those who disobeyed. Apparently,, all that God needs to do to bring about evil is to tell people, “Do not…”
rhutchin
Everyone knows that the minute God gave Israel the Ten Commandments, He knew (Wink, wink) that they would disobey.
br.d
But ONLY the Calvinist knows Calvin’s god DOES ONT PERMIT Israel to obey the Ten Commandments – as part of is DECREEING all sins and all evils into existence.
br.d writes, “But ONLY the Calvinist knows Calvin’s god DOES ONT PERMIT Israel to obey the Ten Commandments – as part of is DECREEING all sins and all evils into existence.”
That decree involving God’s decision not to give people faith. As Paul describes in Romans 8, “those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh…For to be carnally minded is death…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.”
br.d
But ONLY the Calvinist knows Calvin’s god DOES ONT PERMIT Israel to obey the Ten Commandments – as part of is DECREEING all sins and all evils into existence.”
rhutchin
That decree involving God’s decision not to give people faith.
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t DECREE every juicy morsel of sin and evil for his good pleasure.
I’m glad my earthly father wasn’t sadistic like that to me!
br.d writes, ‘*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t DECREE every juicy morsel of sin and evil for his good pleasure.”
The effect of the absence of faith
Then, “I’m glad my earthly father wasn’t sadistic like that to me!”
Says the man who was born with perfect faith and never sinned. You were fortunate.
br.d
‘*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t DECREE every juicy morsel of sin and evil for his good pleasure.”
rhutchin
The effect of the absence of faith
br.d
rhutchin – you REALLY call want to that logic?
I’m glad my earthly father wasn’t sadistic like that to me!
rhutchin
Says the man who was born with perfect faith and never sinned. You were fortunate.
br.d
Now imperfect faith is supposed to be equal with sadism.
This is getting painful to watch!
rhutchin
God uses the evil desires of people to accomplish His plans”
br.d
This is a great example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking.”
rhutchin
As supported by Scripture.
br.d
Man – you’re all over the place with this one.
First you say Calvin’s instructions on *AS-IF* thinking was -quote “Just his opinion”
Then you change that to Calvin instructs *AS-IF* thinking to young believers who need to learn to trust Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
Now you’re changing that to claiming *AS-IF* thinking is taught in scripture
And the ironic part is you seem to blindly believe all of the personal boastings are actually real – and that nobody sees through them!
I do feel fortunate.
Secret will of God???
How interesting in Calvinism that God’s Secret will is:
1. Always In Contradiction of His Revealed will
2. Always has an element of evil or unholiness with it that clearly opposes His Moral Character.
3. Always wins over His Revealed Will and Over His Demonstrably Good Character
4. Always makes it harder to Trust Him
To me that sounds like a tactic the devil would use to undermine a believer’s confidence in God
and to make non-Christians turn away in disgust.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say…”
The Secret will of God in Calvinism is ALWAYS calling into doubt something God has clearly stated, it is always saying “Did God actually say….”
Beware of the true actor behind “Calvinism’s Secret Will of God”
Great post GraceAdict!
Although in my mind I think it more accurate to say MOST of his enunciated will is in direct opposition to his secret will.
This would make sense because his enunciated will is that creatures not sin – while all sin originates from his secret will.
And there is much more sin in the world than not.
And on item 4 about trust – I don’t see how its conceivable for hardly anything about Calvin’s god to be trusted.
The human mind is designed to trust based upon its observation of things repeated over time.
I envision a father pushing his daughter on a swing – he watches the swing and observes the best position to push.
This is done by repetition over time.
What the Calvinist sees repeating – is Calvin’s god “enunciating” his will.
Only to find out later his “secret” will was the opposite.
And this is what the Calvinist observed repeated over time.
Over time the Calvinist learns – the only thing he can trust about Calvin’s god is that he does whatever he pleases.
All of the promises in scripture for the Calvinist are therefore an UNCERTAIN sound.
In order to retain a sense of trust – Calvinists are forced to MAKE-BELIEVE Calvin’s god’s will for them is benevolent.
There but for the grace of God go I!
Thanks for your comments
BR.D “Although in my mind I think it more accurate to say MOST of his enunciated will is in direct opposition to his secret will.”
GA… I see that as true.
the reason I went with the opposite even though both are true, is because every time there is an appeal to His “secret will” it is because it contradicts the revealed will 100% of the time… hence the need to appeal to something “secret”, which has not been enunciated…The use of the word “secret” is a red flag and signals BIG contradiction every time.
So in Calvinism if secret will is used Guaranteed it is because they know what they are teaching contradicts revealed/enunciated will. Just stop and look for it.
That was what I was thinking…
I do like “Most of his enunciated will is in direct opposition to his secret will”…very true indeed.
Your statement characterizes His Enunciated will
My statement characterizes His Secret will … Simply vantage point or emphasis.
Good points! And I agree :-]
If you have 4 minutes to watch this video that exposes Calvinism like no other video but it is also funny and sad at the same time, while very insightful.
Sure – but if you try to post the link the system might flag it as spam
How do I find the video?
Another short video 3:50 minutes long is called “Hitler finds out Arminian Theology is True” this is on Youtube… so much truth packed into that short video it was posted 5 years ago… sad but true and also some humor.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hitler+finds+out+arminianism+is+true
Oh yes! I’ve seen that one – its hilarious! :-]
GraceAdict writes, “How interesting in Calvinism that God’s Secret will is:
1. Always In Contradiction of His Revealed will”
The Ten Commandments are God’s revealed will – Do not commit adultery. Yet, God watches David commit adultery with Bathsheba and does nothing to stop David. Isn’t that God’s secret will – that David should commit adultery with Bathsheba?
rhutchin
God watches David commit adultery with Bathsheba and does nothing to stop David. Isn’t that God’s secret will – that David should commit adultery with Bathsheba?
br.d
Simple LOGIC:
If it came to pass – then Calvin’s god MADE it come to pass by IMMUTABLE DECREE.
And DID NOT PERMIT otherwise come to pass.
In such case Calvin would call that Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
Additionally:
Since Calvin’s god does not allow humans to know when his Enunciated will is in direct opposition to his SECRET will – it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS – humans face the probability of divine malevolence.
So when the Calvinist reads: “God so loved the world” – the Calvinist doesn’t know if that applies to himself.
And when the Calvinist reads: “Cast them into outer darkness” – the Calvinist can calculate probability – that applies to himself.
For the Calvinist – ALL of the promises of God are an UNCERTAIN sound.
Yes, in the Calvinist paradigm God has to have a “secret will” that is always opposed to His revealed will,
BUT that is only necessary because Calvinism insists on holding to the unbiblical notion of Meticulous Divine Determinism.
The Calvinist’s reasoning goes like this:
A. We know for absolute certainty that “Universal Meticulous Divine Determinism is True” and this is the only way God can be Glorified.
B. God’s “Revealed will” is clear, He is Holy, He hates sin, He is not the Author of sin, God hates sexual impurity, God hates murder, God hates stealing, God is truth, God is light in Him is NO darkness at all.
C. It is obvious, there is more sin in this world then there is righteousness, lies abound, sexual impurity is everywhere, murder and stealing run rampant, darkness is multiplying in every city and community.
Therefore the Calvinist Conclusion is: Since “Universal Meticulous Divine Determinism” is True and this is the only way God is glorified then God must have a “Secret Will” that super cedes His Revealed will and irresistibly brings to pass all sin and evil. The existence of Sin in a completely Deterministic world is proof that God has a “Secret will” that is at odds with “His Revealed will” and super cedes His Revealed Will…I know this is a hard doctrine brothers it is a “mystery” to me as well but to God be the Glory just humbly accept this for who are you oh man to question it? and Calvin?
Nice post GraceAdict.
I’m reminded that N.T. Write calls John Calvin a Catholic with a small “c”.
And on the business of him insisting people blindly believe whatever he says on grounds of “who are you oh man to question” – I think this has its roots in the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. And that is one of the reasons non-Calvinist reformers call John Calvin the “pope of Geneva”.
rhutchin
Apparently,, all that God needs to do to bring about evil is to tell people, “Do not…
br.d
Here is an excellent example of the Calvinist trying to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission in camouflaged form.
Thank you rhutchin for this one!
br.d writes, “Here is an excellent example of the Calvinist trying to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission in camouflaged form.”
A bold claim but who knows what he is talking about?? Does anyone know what br.d is trying to say?
rhutchin
Apparently,, all that God needs to do to bring about evil is to tell people, “Do not…
br.d
“Here is an excellent example of the Calvinist trying to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission in camouflaged form.”
rhutchin
A bold claim but who knows what he is talking about?? Does anyone know what br.d is trying to say?
br.d
I’m happy to let SOT101 readers who understand Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK – discern it for themselves. :-]
br.d writes, “I’m happy to let SOT101 readers who understand Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK – discern it for themselves.”
I’d be happy if they could just explain what you are trying to say.
Heather writes, “Exactly the problem! Calvinists start with one verse and determine for themselves what it says. And when they make it Calvinistic enough, they super-impose it on the rest of Scripture.”
Calvinists take the Scriptures to mean what they say. When Jesus said, “no one can come to me,” it means exactly that. When Hebrews says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” it means exactly that. That does not mean that all verses are as straightforward in what they say. however, it is true for a great many verses.
Then, “Hmm, let’s see that again with my comments in brackets:
“Unless God saves all people, He is willing for some to perish [So much for 2 Peter 3:9 about God not wanting anyone to perish!] and wants that outcome since He does not exercise His power to save all people…. ”
Even you should know that there are different interpretations of 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” Calvinists apply the rule governing antecedents concluding that “His promise [to us]”…longsuffering toward us…any (of us)….all (of us)…” all refer to the same people – God;s elect.
Then, ‘[Calvinism: Deciding for itself that God’s love necessarily ends in forced salvation….]
Can we say that God loves a person when He does not force salvation on the person and lets the person spend eternity in hell? I suspect the people who end up in hell, have a different opinion of God’s love than you.
Then, ” [IF God has the power!?! So are you saying Calvi-god doesn’t have the power to save all people!?! ”
Actually, no inference about God’s power was intended. I said, “if God has the power to save a person and then does not save the person, what good is it to say God’s loves the person?” You decide whether you think God has this power to save a person but does not save the person, then answer the question – what good is it to say God’s loves the person in that situation?
Then, ‘in Calvinism, “all” doesn’t mean “all.” My bad!”
In Calvinism, “all” generally refers to both Jews and gentiles and not each and every individual Jew and gentile. That gives us:
1 Timothy 2 – “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires [both Jews and gentiles] to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for [both Jews and gentiles], to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle–I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying–a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”
1 John 2 – “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for [Jews and gentiles throughout] the whole world.
Romans 5 – “Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to [both Jews and gentiles], because [both Jews and gentiles] sinned…Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to [both Jews and gentiles], resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to [both Jews and gentiles], resulting in justification of life.
Hebrews 2:9 – “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for [both Jews and gentiles].”
Hebrews 9:12 – “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for [both Jews and gentiles], having obtained eternal redemption.”
1 Timothy 4:10 – “For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of [both Jews and gentiles], especially of those who believe.”
Then, “Silly me, I thought that the Bible shows that Jesus’s death paid for all sins and bought salvation for all men, meaning that it’s available for all.”
So, you believe that Christ endured agony not to save anyone but just to make salvation available. Yet, you don’t see how comical that is.
Then, “Thank you, Rhutchin! You’ve made my point for me!”
What point – that you are biased and believe what you are told to beleive??
FOH: I am still waiting for a Calvinist to answer:
Can we do anything that is not God’s will?
If everything that happens exactly as God willed/ planned it?
Heather: You’d think this would be an easy one for them to answer and to own up to. Especially if God wills everything that happens for HIs own glory. If it’s for His glory, then why would they have such a hard time answering this? Very telling!
And I answer him for a few reasons: 1. To help me formulate how I might respond to their nonsense and find holes in it, especially since I write about it on my blog. It’s like mental exercise. 2. For anyone else who might be reading. 3. And for my own amusement, as seen in the last couple comments I made.
I think part of it might also come from the fact that I can’t talk to people at my ex-church about it. I would really like to be able to share all that I’m learning with them and why Calvinism is dangerous/incorrect, but I don’t think anyone there cares. They are all under the sway of Calvi-pastor. And so I guess that mental energy has to go somewhere. 🙂
(I hope I am not overstepping any kind of unspoken comment-rules, about length of comments or amount of comments or something like that. If so, I apologize and will tone it down.)
Heather,
You are not overstepping the rules to be sure! And your comments are good!
The reason that no one at your ex-church cares is what I have been saying for a long time….
Being a Calvinist make s no difference. Stated otherwise: No one lives like they are a Calvinist!
FOH writes, “No one lives like they are a Calvinist!’
I do.
FOH
No one lives like they are a Calvinist!’
rhutchin
I do.
br.d
Its claims like that give the gig away!
William Lane Craig (paraphrased)
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside himself.
Even the Determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* there are multiple options available to him which exist as real.
And act *AS-IF* he can weigh those options and decide on what course of action to take without something external to him having determined them for him – even though at the end of the day he believes something or someone determined every choice he would make for him. Thus Determinism is an unliveable view.
This presents a real problem not just for the Calvinist, but for the Natural Determinist.
For insofar as Natural Determinism implies that all of his actions are determined by natural causes outside of himself, multiple options and freedom to do otherwise are illusions. But he cannot escape these illusions and so must go on making choices *AS-IF* he were free to do otherwise, even though in his system he isn’t.
Therefore both Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism are unliveable worldviews.
Here is wisdom:
Always remember – way to many Calvinist arguments are SEMANTIC arguments.
As GraceAdict insightful puts it:
In Calvinism – what the large print giveth – the fine print taketh away! :-]
br.d quotes William Lane Craig (paraphrased) -quote
“Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside himself. ”
Under Calvinism, a person knows that both external and internal factors influence his choices and that he can appela to God for understanding and wisdom to make choices.
That is why, “Therefore both Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism are unliveable worldviews,” but Calvinist determinism, incorporating both external and internal factors, is a viable worldview.
br.d quotes William Lane Craig (paraphrased) -quote
“Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside himself. ”
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, a person knows that both external and internal factors influence his choices
br.d
*AS-IF* “internal” factors aren’t SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god in his process of DETERMINING every part of *ALL* leaving NOTHING left over for the Calvinist to determine.
rhutchin
and that he [the Calvinist] can appela to God for understanding and wisdom to make choices.
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god is not the SOLE DETERMINER of whether or not a Calvinist will make an appeal
Or instead process CAUSE the Calvinist to process more SINS and EVILS which Calvin’s god DECREED for him.
rhutchin
That is why, “Therefore both Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism are unliveable worldviews,” but Calvinist determinism, incorporating both external and internal factors, is a viable worldview.
br.d
Yes – Theological Determinism as well as Natural Determinism are both unlivable worldviews.
And we can see the term “viable” is subjective
A battered wife calling her life “viable” is an expected part of her psychological condition.
And thank you rhutchin for providing another example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking :-]
Your examples are always very consistent!
br.d writes, “*AS-IF* “internal” factors aren’t SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god in his process of DETERMINING every part of *ALL* leaving NOTHING left over for the Calvinist to determine.”
Determined by God in creating man in His image and then giving man a sin nature consequent to Adam’s sin characterized by a heart that is wicked and deceitful and the absence of faith but not under compulsion by God except through the counsel of his sin nature.
Then, “And we can see the term “viable” is subjective”
OK, use livable worldview.
br.d
*AS-IF* “internal” factors aren’t SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god in his process of DETERMINING every part of *ALL* leaving NOTHING left over for the Calvinist to determine.”
rhutchin
Determined by God in creating man in His image
br.d
Superfluous – red-herring
Since it is still the case that Calvin’s god DETERMINES more than just the creature’s “image”
So Calvinist thinking *AS-IF* “internal” factors aren’t SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god in his process of DETERMINING every part of *ALL* leaving NOTHING left over for the Calvinist to determine – is still just *AS-IF* thinking.
rhutchin
and then giving man a sin nature consequent to Adam’s sin
br.d
Which ever part of Calvin’s god DECREED – NOT PERMITTING Adam to be/do otherwise than what he DECREED.
rhutchin
characterized by a heart that is wicked and deceitful and the absence of faith
br.d
Which Calvin’s god DESIGNED – (See Calvinism’s doctrine of the divine potter)
rhutchin
but not under compulsion by God except through the counsel of his sin nature.
br.d
FALSE
Since every part of every attribute (and man’s nature is an attribute) is SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god in his process of DETERMINING every part of *ALL* leaving NOTHING left over (including man’s nature) for the man to determine
Every attribute of the creature is the EFFECT – and Calvin’s god the CAUSE.
rhutchin
OK, use livable worldview.
br.d
Given Theological Determinism’s conundrums (as William Lane Craig notes) – I totally understand how *AS-IF* thinking is necessary and functions to make Calvinism livable.
This comparison between the two worldviews I find very interesting.
The worldview of the Theological Determinist (aka Calvinist) vs the Natural Determinist.
I seem to remember James White responding to this also – indicating that Determinism for the Calvinist is better (in his mind) than for the Naturalist because Calvin’s god is a person – and Calvinism a personal belief system – where Nature is Non-Personal.
However I can easily see how the Natural Determinist would look at the character of Calvin’s god – (as Calvin himself describes) and come to the opposite conclusion.
Calvin’s god takes a sadistic pleasure in designing the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
The Naturalist would consider himself blessed to have Nature as his SOLE DETERMINER rather than a sadist – because with Nature every person stands on a level playing field.
They would say that Nature is not demonically predisposed against hand-picked individuals like they see with Calvin’s god.
So based on the person of Calvin’s god being viewed as sadistic – the Naturalist could just as easily consider himself better off.
A few quotes from one of my favorite Gnostics:
“First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121,
“God had no doubt decreed before the foundation of the world what He would do with every one of us and had assigned to everyone by His secret counsel his part in life.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p.20, emphasis mine)
“…the reason why God elects some and rejects others is to be found in His purpose alone. … before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God. … the salvation or the destruction of men depends on His free election.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.203, emphasis mine)
“But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.171-172, emphasis mine)
“Does God work in the hearts of men, directing their plans and moving their wills this way and that, so that they do nothing but what He has ordained?” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.174, emphasis mine)
there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.177, emphasis mine)
“But of all the things which happen, the first cause is to be understood to be His will, because He so governs the natures created by Him, as to determine all the counsels and the actions of men to the end decreed by Him.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.178, emphasis mine)
“But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.176, emphasis mine)
Herman Hoeksra good loyal Calvinist — on Reprobation
“What is the place of reprobation in that scheme? God has reprobated as well as chosen. Taken by itself, reprobation is the decree of God in which He has determined, as sovereignly as in election, that some individuals should not enter eternal glory, but are destined for destruction. Thus it should be expressed.”
“Therefore, we would rather say that reprobation is that decree of God by which He sovereignly destined some to destruction. For, certainly, the condemnation shall be on the basis of the sin and guilt of the reprobate, but never as if this reprobation rests on foreseen sin. Reprobation, even as election, is entirely, sovereignly free.”
“Why did God reprobate? You say: To the glorification of His name. Correct. We agree. God the Lord has wrought all things for His own sake, even the wicked to the day of evil.”
Don’t you just love the Calvi-god?
Wonderful quotes GraceAdict!
We can see how RH is always trying to put the primary focus on some attribute of the creature while HIDING the fact that every attribute is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED by Calvin’s god. *AS-IF* they came about by Calvin’s god’s ASSENT – rather than his SPECIFIC DECREE.
Anything to make the EFFECT look like it CAUSED itself.
But when the Calvinist does that – he’s simply manufacturing a FACADE and calling it the real thing – in order to HIDE the real thing.
And that becomes a manifestation of dishonesty.
br.d writes, “Since it is still the case that Calvin’s god DETERMINES more than just the creature’s “image””
God determined that Adam would die if he ate the fruit. Adam ate the fruit when presented that fruit by Eve who had been deceived by Satan who could not enter the garden without God determining that he should enter to deceive Eve. Following his sin, Adam died and his nature became corrupt and faith was destroyed and this corruption and loss of faith was passed on to his descendants. All of this was determined by God when He opened the gate giving Satan access to the garden.
Then, “So Calvinist thinking *AS-IF* “internal” factors aren’t SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god in his process of DETERMINING every part of *ALL* leaving NOTHING left over for the Calvinist to determine – is still just *AS-IF* thinking.”
Determined by God through the corruption of man’s nature and loss of faith consequent to Adam’s sin. God understood that this would lead to the world described in Genesis 6 – “…the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…” God had already determined to destroy the world because of the corruption of mankind – a corruption that was affected by Adam’s sin. There is nothing that was not determined by God.
Then, ‘Which ever part of Calvin’s god DECREED – NOT PERMITTING Adam to be/do otherwise than what he DECREED.”
Adam not permitted consequent to the innocence God gave him, lack of knowledge and understanding, and Adam’s failure to call on God for wisdom to deal with Eve and the fruit that she offered. In Hosea, we read, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Adam was destroyed for his lack of knowledge even though he, like Israel, could have called out to God for wisdom.
Then, “Which Calvin’s god DESIGNED – (See Calvinism’s doctrine of the divine potter)”
As testified in Genesis, “God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” God designed Adam’s heart as a good heart – Adam’s heart was corrupted when he ate the fruit.
Then, “Every attribute of the creature is the EFFECT – and Calvin’s god the CAUSE.”
God is the cause because He created Adam. Adam’s sin is the cause of the corruption of mankind – the effect of Adam’s sin
br.d
Since it is still the case that Calvin’s god DETERMINES more than just the creature’s “image””
rhutchin
God determined that Adam would die if he ate the fruit. …..etc
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t determine Adam eat the fruit – making it the only available option for Adam.
Calvin’s god then communicated to Adam – deceiving Adam into believing he did not will Adam’s death.
Calvin’s god doesn’t speak the WHOLE TRUTH when he speaks.
rhutchin
Determined by God through the corruption of man’s nature
br.d
Which every part of was SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god who determines *ALL* – leaving nothing left over for Creatures to determine.
Adam was NOT PERMITTING to disobey the SECRET will
rhutchin
Adam not permitted consequent to the innocence God gave him, lack of knowledge and understanding, and Adam’s failure to call on God for wisdom to deal with Eve and the fruit that she offered. In Hosea, we read, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Adam was destroyed for his lack of knowledge even though he, like Israel, could have called out to God for wisdom.
br.d
Calvinists trying to blame the EFFECT as the CAUSE of the EFFECT are so hilarious!
Just as William Lane Craig described it……*AS-IF* thinking
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god isn’t the SOLE DETERMINER of every creaturely attribute the Calvinist wants to escape behind.
Calvin’s god DESIGNS the vast majority of his creation for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
(See Calvinism’s doctrine of the divine potter)”
rhutchin
As testified in Genesis, “God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” God designed Adam’s heart as a good heart – Adam’s heart was corrupted when he ate the fruit.
br.d
More *AS-IF* thinking.
In this case *AS-IF* Adam had any say in any neurological impulse Calvin’s god determined to appear in his brain.
Every attribute of the creature is the EFFECT – and Calvin’s god the CAUSE.”
rhutchin
God is the cause because He created Adam. Adam’s sin is the cause of the corruption of mankind – the effect of Adam’s sin
br.d
Down to the very slightest atomic movements in every part of it – SOLELY DETERMINED by Calvin’s god.
Who determines *ALL* leaving NOTHING left over for the creature to determine.
But we know why the Calvinist so needs to blame the EFFECT for the EFFECT. :-]
rh writes:
“Determined by God in creating man in His image and then giving man a sin nature consequent to Adam’s sin characterized by a heart that is wicked and deceitful and the absence of faith but not under compulsion by God except through the counsel of his sin nature.”
Now how would you like to have that for a God? Seriously. God supposedly created man in his own image but then (in a hissy fit?) cursed him with a sin nature that is ‘characterized by a heart that is wicked and deceitful and the absence of faith’.
That is enough for me to know I want nothing, ever, to do with Calvinism again. These people are absolutely nuts. What do they see in this god they have created? I’ve said it before, but the only thing I can see that’s in it for them is the lack of personal responsibility for their own actions and the false assurance that they will get into heaven no matter what they do or don’t do.
I still recall one of the Calvinist pastors I contacted when I first jumped ship. He had belonged to my denomination, and had been sorely used, put on trial, found guilty, but eventually, IIRC, restored. When I shared with him my own doubts I was surprised and relieved to hear him say, ‘If Calvinism doesn’t work for you, just ditch it. It’s not like it’s the gospel.’ But I could never quite figure out why he added, ‘But for me, I still find it assuring.’ I believe this false assurance of being ‘in’ no matter what is what appeals to so many.
We could ask him what is he “assured” about?
Calvin’s god designs the MANY for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
And that pastor has absolutely now way of knowing if that was what Calvin’s god designed for him.
If he calls that “assuring” he’s probably got some mental problems!
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god designs the MANY for eternal torment in a lake of fire.”
This affirmed by Jesus when He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” What then can we said about those reprobate who do not say, “Lord, Lord…”
br.d
Calvin’s god designs the MANY for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
rhutchin
This affirmed by Jesus when He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’….etc
br.d
Well since the Calvinist believes scripture teaches that Calvin’s god designs the MANY for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure. Then we should see that fact boldly proclaimed to the world by Calvinists.
Hmmm – when was the last time I heard Piper or MacArthur proclaim that? :-]
TS00 writes, “God supposedly created man in his own image but then (in a hissy fit?) cursed him with a sin nature that is ‘characterized by a heart that is wicked and deceitful and the absence of faith’.”
Maybe you could explain how you get a different conclusion from the events in the garden of Eden. We read that “God created man in His own image;’ in Genesis and then, “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” This resulted in God’s condemnation of the world in Genesis 6, “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Jeremiah then explains, ““The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.”
Then, “That is enough for me to know I want nothing, ever, to do with Calvinism again.”
Forget Calvinism then and just deal with the Scriptures.
Assuming that “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” is a threat is actually a pretty big assumption. One might rightly suggest it is a warning, or even a prophecy, of what did indeed happen, with man being expelled from the garden before he ate of the Tree of Life.
What I see throughout scripture – which I do indeed study without considering Calvinism – is God seeking to overcome the problem of death that Adam’s choice ensured. He reveals a plan to overcome death, and the sin and evil that accompanies it; but in a race of creatures made in the image of God, with freedom of choice, this was going to be a long process.
Certainly God could have overruled the freedom of man to choose, or never have created him with such an ability. There would never have been sin or death. But there also would never have been love, or a genuine freely reciprocated relationship between Creator and creature. Apparently, God deems this relationship valuable enough – for both of us – that it is worth all of the struggle with sin and evil that its existence would create. Instead of making us choiceless robots, God allowed the process to unwind of man rebelling, then he himself redeeming all that was set in disarray.
Being patient and desiring that none perish, but all turn from wickedness and live, God has been teaching us, generation after generation, how we are deceived by sin and why we need him to rescue us. Most important of all, he made sure that the good news of his love and redemption was spread over the face of the earth, that all may hear and know of God’s desire to save them.
Prior to Jesus, this required God’s direct interaction, or the sending of prophets to declare truth. But with Jesus the truth was held up, like the serpent in the wilderness, once and for all, for all to see. The truth became Word, and it is now written and freely available for men to read and comprehend. Nor must they do this on their own, for God, who desires us to come to the knowledge of the truth, sends his Spirit to help us and, if we are willing, to indwell and lead us.
You might notice this is a far different story than the one that has a cruel God, so angry at Adam’s sin (not sure how he can be angry at what he ordained, but that’s another issue) that he curses all of the race of men, whom he once created ‘very good’ as now totally corrupt and incapable of good. And then picks a select few to forcibly rescue, while violently discarding the rest to perpetual suffering.
It’s hard to believe people can read the exact same words and come up with such drastically different understandings of them. Realizing that this is so should be freeing, allowing the Calvinist to know that there are entirely different understandings of those troubling aspects of their system which they have been told they must simply accept without question.
Good news! You do not have to believe God is a cruel, controlling, partial madman who commands one thing and via another, secret will ordains the opposite. Good news! You do not have to believe that God only loved some Jews and some Gentiles, but that he actually loved every single creature he ever breathed life into. There is so much good news when you cast off Calvinism and turn to alternative understandings of scripture, which, by the way, existed for hundreds of years before Augustine introduced his Gnostic synthesis into the institution known as The Christian Church.
TS00 writes, “Certainly God could have overruled the freedom of man to choose, or never have created him with such an ability.”
People have freedom of choice but without faith have no freedom to pursue salvation. As faith comes by hearing the word (i.e., the gospel) freedom of choice unto salvation can only come after a person receives faith. After Adam ate the fruit, his descendants were all born without faith, the enforcement of God’s penalty on Adam, and could only receive faith through the hearing of the word and then only as a gift by God’s grace – thus, many hear the gospel preached and walk away unaffected.
So, can a person be “free” to respond to Christ without faith? FOH seems to think so. Do you?
rhutchin
People have freedom of choice
br.d
This is deceptive language
Calvin’s god DECREES every choice – and DOES NOT GIVE the creature the freedom to choose otherwise.
The creature is ONLY free to have the choice Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have.
br,d writes, “The creature is ONLY free to have the choice Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have.”
And this by the gift of faith.
br,d
The creature is ONLY free to have the choice Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have.”
rhutchin
And this by the gift of faith.
br.d
And Calvinists claim to combine logic with scripture!
What a doooseeee! :-]
br,d: “The creature is ONLY free to have the choice Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have.”
rhutchin: “And this by the gift of faith.”
br.d: “And Calvinists claim to combine logic with scripture!”
Even br.d cannot deny the Scriptures all the time.
br,d
In Calvinism the creature is ONLY free to have the choice Calvin’s god DECREES the creature have.”
rhutchin
And this by the gift of faith.
br.d
And Calvinists claim to combine logic with scripture!
rhutchin
Even br.d cannot deny the Scriptures all the time.
br.d
Wooow! It becomes painfully obvious Calvinists have their own unique definition of logic :-]
ruthchin
Even br.d cannot deny the Scriptures all the time.
br.d
What is hilarious:
Calvin’s god determines what Sun Myung Moon perceives as TRUE whether its TRUE or not.
Calvin’s god determines what you perceive as TRUE – whether its TRUE or not.
It LOGICALLY follows – you don’t know if what you perceive is REALLY TRUE any more than the Sun Myung Moon does.
Neither of you have the ability to weight multiple perceptions and make a LIBERTARIAN choice between them.
But rather your every perception is determined FOR YOU
Which makes your perception no more legitimate than Sun Myung Moon’s :-]
brdmod writes, “But rather your every perception is determined FOR YOU”
Yes, by your sin nature and lack of faith – these the causes behind the effect; a person’s perceptions.
br.d
In Calvinism – “But rather your every perception is determined FOR YOU”
rhutchin
Yes, by your sin nature and lack of faith – these the causes behind the effect; a person’s perceptions.
br.d
You mean “your” sin nature – Calvinist denial is soooooo hilarious!!
A creatures attribute CAUSED that creature’s attribute – CAUSED that creature’s attribute – CAUSED that creature’s attribute – and on into infinite regress!
The closer you trace Calvinism’s CAUSAL chain back to its SOURCE/ORIGIN – the more terrified the Calvinist gets! :-]
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, a person is spiritually dead because they have a sin nature and lack faith.
br.d
More precisely – under Calvinism people are DESIGNED with a sin nature, etc.
John Calvin
-quote
Before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God…..the destruction of men depends on His free election.
A divine potter who DESIGNS the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
What kind of love is this?
br.d
Calvin’s god AUTHORS/DESIGNS every part of every attribute of the creature – and DOSE NOT PERMIT any attribute to be otherwise than what he specifically AUTHORS/DECREES. So every attribute you want to blame has its SOURCE in Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
More simply, God gives people a sin nature and withholds faith from them.
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits nature in whatever form – to be/do anything!
Every juicy micro-part of every sin and evil meticulously CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god.
And then meticulously timed to to come to pass at precisely the exact micro-second
“merely permitting NOTHING
br.d writes, “*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits nature in whatever form – to be/do anything!”
By decree – not “merely” permit.
Then, “Every juicy micro-part of every sin and evil meticulously CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god.”
This because God has infinite understanding and all things were conceived all things in His mind before he created the universe and therby God works all things by the counsel of His will. Thus, “And then meticulously timed to to come to pass at precisely the exact micro-second”
From Alice in Calvinland (paraphrased from Alice in Wonderland):
“… Alice started to her feet … and, burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after [the white rabbit named John Calvin], and was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge. In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out [of Calvinland] again.”
“And here Alice [now a staunch Calvinist] began to get rather sleepy, and went on saying to herself, in a dreamy sort of way, “Can people do anything that God doesn’t will? Can people do anything that God doesn’t will?” and sometimes “Can God will things that people don’t do?” for, you see, as she couldn’t answer either question, it didn’t much matter which way she put it.”
“She generally gave herself very good pats on the back for her arguments … for this curious child was very fond of pretending to be two people.”
“And so she went on, taking first one side and then the other, and making quite a conversation of it altogether.”
“Oh dear, what nonsense I’m talking!”
“Curiouser and Curiouser!”
And a poem to end this tale:
“How doth the little Calvinist
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little Christians in,
With gently smiling jaws!”
Oooh, wait … I just thought of a better version of the poem:
“How doth the little Calvinist
Live with his terrible lies?
He clings to the thought that “God ordains”
Until the day he dies!
How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little Christians in,
With gently smiling jaws!”
Rhutchin: “God gives people the freedom to disobey His law, so sin is not God’s will, but God has ordained that people sin. As God works all things together for good for His elect, even sin is ultimately His will.”
Ha ha ha, that’s so rich! That everyone else can see what’s wrong with this but him! I repeat something I said earlier:
“And so she went on, taking first one side and then the other, and making quite a conversation of it altogether…. Oh dear, what nonsense I’m talking!” (Alice in Wonderland)
FOH, Aren’t you glad that he answered your question? Delightful!
heather writes, “Ha ha ha, that’s so rich! That everyone else can see what’s wrong with this but him! ”
Oh heather! Are you suggesting that God gave Israel His law (His will for Israel) without understanding that Israel would disobey His law (also God’s will for Israel). Which part, the law or the disobedience was not God’s will?
rhutchin
Oh heather! Are you suggesting that God gave Israel His law (His will for Israel) without understanding that Israel would disobey His law (also God’s will for Israel). Which part, the law or the disobedience was not God’s will?
br.d
This is a new strategy – using the term “understanding” to replace the term DECREEING.
Heather are you suggesting that Calvin’s god gave his law without DECREEING it be disobeyed?
Shame on you!
How could you!!!!
wink-wink ;-]
br.d writes, “This is a new strategy – replacing the term “understanding” with DECREEING.”
Not really, Ephesians tells us, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” God’s understanding is incorporated into the counsel of His will. Thus, God’s understanding of His creation is the basis for God’s working in His creation. Maybe br.d could give us his rendering of Ephesisns 1:11. Hey!!! What happened?? br.d disappeared.
br.d
This is a new strategy – replacing the term “understanding” with what is in fact DECREEING.”
rhutchin
Not really, Ephesians tells us, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” God’s understanding is incorporated into the counsel of His will. Thus, God’s understanding of His creation is the basis for God’s working in His creation. Maybe br.d could give us his rendering of Ephesisns 1:11. Hey!!! What happened?? br.d disappeared.
br.d
Yes really
And its so easy to discern what Calvinist language is designed to hide.
However, one can easily put the term DECREE in the place of the term “understand” in their statements – and be much more TRUTH-TELLING.
br.d writes, ‘And its so easy to discern what Calvinist language is designed to hide.”
The Calvinist puts the authority and truth of Scripture up front for all to see. br.d hides the Scripture and inserts the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as his authority and truth. Perhaps, br.d could agree that Scripture is our authority and its truth is the beginning of any discussion. Probably not.
There you have it, plain as day. According to rhutchin, if you brush away all the distracting verbiage:
“. . . sin is not God’s will . . . but . . . even sin is ultimately His will.”
Yes, and no. A, and not-A. This, and that. Contradiction is inherent to Calvinism.
TS00 writes, “According to rhutchin,…: “. . . sin is not God’s will . . . but . . . even sin is ultimately His will.”
Why not spend a little effort explaining why God’s commands are not God’s will or man’s disobedience to those laws is not God’s will.
Rh writes:
“Why not spend a little effort explaining why God’s commands are not God’s will or man’s disobedience to those laws is not God’s will.”
Lol. Are you there FOH? Ever heard that one? If rhutchin would give me a dollar for every word I have expended in such effort on these threads, in response to him, he would be broke and I would be on vacation. 😉
rhutchin
Why not spend a little effort explaining why God’s commands are not God’s will or man’s disobedience to those laws is not God’s will.
br.d
Another GREAT Calvinist book:
Title: Calvin’s god’s commands are not his will
Sub-Title: Why no one can trust what Calvin’s god’s will is.
Publisher: Deformed Press
BR.D says:
“Another GREAT Calvinist book:
Title: Calvin’s god’s commands are not his will
Sub-Title: Why no one can trust what Calvin’s god’s will is.
Publisher: Deformed Press”
Heather says: Love it!
Chapter 1: “Calvi-god commands Adam and Eve NOT to eat from the Forbidden Tree, while secretly willing that they eat from the Forbidden Tree.”
Chapter 2: “How can Calvinists ever trust anything Calvi-god commands, if his will is actually the opposite of what he commands?”
Chapter 3: “Why abuse, murder, affairs, unbelief, etc. are actually GOOD in Calvi-god’s eyes! He says not to do it, but he secretly wants it to happen and causes it to happen. So sin and evil really are his will, even if he says they aren’t!”
Chapter 4: “How to use ‘It’s a mystery’ and “Who are you to talk back to God?’ to shut down any opposition!”
Rhutchin says: “The Ten Commandments are God’s revealed will – Do not commit adultery. Yet, God watches David commit adultery with Bathsheba and does nothing to stop David. Isn’t that God’s secret will – that David should commit adultery with Bathsheba?”
This demonstrates the epitome of Calvinism’s bad logic, making assumptions about who God is and what He wants based on what happens and on their own misconceptions of what sovereignty is, instead of viewing this verse in light of the overall message of the Gospel and His revealed good and holy character.
“God saw it happen and didn’t stop it, so therefore God wanted it to happen and essentially caused it to happen because He didn’t stop it, and so it simply MUST be His preordained will. Because God is sovereign, and that means He has to tightly, actively control everything. Or else He’s not God.”
This turns God into an untrustworthy God who says one thing but means another. Just like telling Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit when Calvi-god’s will is that they eat the fruit. How then can you EVER TRUST ANYTHING Calvi-god commands, when his will might be the opposite of what he commands?
What a great way to excuse marital affairs, abortion, theft, murder, and anything else we want to do. After all, “Calvi-god probably didn’t mean what he really said anyway. His will is probably the opposite. And so since I did what I wanted and Calvi-god didn’t stop me, then it must be his will that I do it.”
Oh my goodness, frickin’ hogwash!!!
I can’t stop calling it that – hogwash (and that’s the “nice” word compared to what I want to call it) – for what it does to the Gospel, to truth, to God’s good character. It is demonic! And like one of the regular commenters (can’t remember which one) pointed out: It’s Satan saying “Did God really say …?” Because Calvi-god can never be trusted to say what he means and mean what he says. And if Satan can undermine God’s authority and erode His character, he can destroy Scripture’s truth and our hope/faith in the God of the Bible. Satan has done a great job of using those inside the church to undermine God and the Gospel, all in the name of “God and the Gospel”! It’s sinister!
(And I love the “Hitler and Calvinism” videos! So good!)
Good post Heather!
And since it is the case Calvin’s god knows that HIS DECREE is a NECESSARY requirement for anything to come to pass – it LOGICALLY follows that if he were to prevent something that he knows is going to come to pass – then he knows he would be preventing something he DECREED – because without the DECREE it is CERTAIN to not come to pass. And since the DECREE is IMMUTABLE – divine prevention in this case is a LOGICAL impossibility.
Calvinists have an ETHICAL NEED to manufacture a FACADE of divine prevention.
Which is LOGICALLY impossible in their system.
That ETHICAL need is the driving factor in all of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
Nice post! :-]
br.d writes, “since it is the case Calvin’s god knows that HIS DECREE is a NECESSARY requirement for anything to come to pass – it LOGICALLY follows that if he were to prevent something that he knows is going to come to pass – then he knows he would be preventing something he DECREED – because without the DECREE it is CERTAIN to not come to pass.”
God has perfect understanding of all that people would, or could, do once He creates Adam and Eve. He works all things after the counsel of His will prior to that time. So, God does not decree something that He can then decree the opposite. God makes one decree to cover His actions – whether to intervene and avoid what He knows would happen absent His involvement. or not to intervene decreeing what He understands will happen through natural causes.
br.d
since it is the case Calvin’s god knows that HIS DECREE is a NECESSARY requirement for anything to come to pass – it LOGICALLY follows that if he were to prevent something that he knows is going to come to pass – then he knows he would be preventing something he DECREED – because without the DECREE it is CERTAIN to not come to pass.”
rhutchin
God has perfect understanding of all that people would, or could do
br.d
How does that show my statement concerning Theological Determinism as FALSE?
It doesn’t!
Therefore it is superfluous.
rhutchin
God makes one decree to cover His actions
br.d
Fine – that would be LOGICALLY consistent in Theological Determinism
rhutchin
whether to intervene and avoid what He knows would happen absent His involvement
br.d
FALSE
There is no such thing as “absent his insolvent” since NOTHING can happen without a NECESSARY prerequisite – Calvin’s god *MUST* DECREE every specific event come to pass. That is why it is called *UNIVERSAL* divine causal determinism.
Thus it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS – he would be intervening/preventing in what he DECREED
Which POST-DECREE is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
However he can DECREE a FAKE event in which he FAKES some kind of intervention/prevention.
rhutchin
.He understands will happen through natural causes.
br.d
An excellent example of how Calvinism is IRRATIONAL!
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) any specific natural event CANNOT come to pass without the NECESSARY prerequisite.
In advance to that specific natural event coming to pass Calvin’s god *MUST* DECREE it.
Its just that simple.
And the DECREE is IMMUTABLE – so Post-DECREE – it CANNOT be prevented.
But we understand why the Calvinist needs to SIMULATE FAKE presentations of divine prevention.
They need it in order to APPEAR biblical.
To be consistent, Calvinists must affirm that nothing happens or can possibly happen by ‘natural causes’ as whatsoever comes to pass it determined, decreed and brought to pass by God. Likewise rh’s comment “whether to intervene and avoid what He knows would happen absent His involvement” is completely irrational under Calvinism. What can possibly happen in a Calvinist world absent God’s involvement? What person can possibly intend, let alone get away with, any action that was not first decreed to happen, without possibility of change, in eternity past by Calvi-god? Completely inconsistent and irrational.
Totally True TS00!
Calvinists try to manufacture FAKE forms of divine “intervention” or divine “prevention” – because they see it in the normal world and they see it in scripture – therefore they need to have it somehow.
But the only way they can LOGICALLY have it is if Calvin’s god makes a FAKE presentation of it – as you’ve said – Calvin’s god doesn’t “merely” permit anything. The only things he permits come to pass are what he specifically DECREES come to pass.
So yes – rhutchin is simply insisting on having something that doesn’t exist in Calvinism because he sees it in scripture – and he has been indoctrinated in the mantra that Calvinism is derived from scripture.
When of course the truth is – Calvinism exploits scripture.
TS00 writes, “To be consistent, Calvinists must affirm that nothing happens or can possibly happen by ‘natural causes’ as whatsoever comes to pass it determined, decreed and brought to pass by God.”
God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes. Thus, the jealousies of Joseph’s brothers, the Midianite slave traders, and Potiphar are the natural means that God uses to accomplish his purposes for Joseph in Egypt. The jealousies of Joseph’s brothers are the natural products of a sin nature; the Midianites were doing there thing, and Potiphar was buying a slave. God had perfect understanding of the jealousies of Joseph’s brothers and the financial desires of the Midianites and the needs of Potiphar for a slave. Was God involved to ensure the Midianites came by at the moment the brothers sought to do something with Joseph or that Potiphar was in the slave market when Joseph was put on sale – very likely.
Then, “What can possibly happen in a Calvinist world absent God’s involvement?”
Nothing given that God had to create the world and then decree a punishment on all mankind for Adam’s sin. Once you accept that, then Cain could kill Abel only because God did not stop him and David could bring Bathesheba to his bed only because God did not stop him – in both instances, God had perfect understanding of both Cain and David and knew what they would do. Thus, God had to decree (decide) that Cain kill Abel and David commit adultery with Bathesheba.
rhutchin
God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes.
br.d
Superfluous – as a NECESSARY condition for every “secondary” is a PRIMARY.
No DECREE = no PRIMARY = no secondary
Its just that simple
A NECESSARY requirement for an event to be “prevented” is the TRUTH-VALUE that that event will come to pass
Calvin’s god knows that NO specific event (whether natural or not) can come to pass without a specific DECREE
The DECREE is IMMUTABLE – so Post-DECREE “preventing” an event is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
However LOGIC does allow for Calvin’s god to DECREE a FAKE presentation of divine prevention.
And that is in fact what Calvinists have.
rh writes:
“God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes.”
In all sincerity, I have never understood what this is supposed to mean, or how it supposedly lets God off the hook for anything, if one believes in the determinist cosmos of Calvinism.
Calvinism asserts that God both originates and controls all things. That would include so-called secondary means. So the speaker cannot possibly mean that there are other things, that originate outside of God, which he then co-opts to accomplish his will. Calvinism certainly will not allow human beings to originate their own thoughts, desires and actions apart from God’s preexisting determinations, settled in the heavens before man came into existence.
So what exactly does ‘using secondary means’ mean? Isn’t everything since the original creation God’s ‘secondary means’ rather than the result of his spoken into existence command? I simply do not see how suggesting ‘seconday means’ convinces the Calvinist that God is not directly responsible for what comes to pass, but only passively responsible.
To the non-Calvinist, who believes that God is not meticulously controlling every aspect of his creation, but has granted to man the gift of reason and the responsibility to use it in making choices, ‘secondary means’ has meaning. God can use the choices – even the very bad choices – of individuals to accomplish his longterm plan, without either desiring or causing those choices.This use of ‘secondary means’ makes sense to me; God uses that which derives from someone or something outside of his deterministic will (even sin) to then accomplish his overarching will of redemption and elimination of sin.
But, for the life of me, I do not understand how ‘secondary means’ can make any sense as so often used by the resident Calvinist. Under Calvinism, there is nothing that arises apart from the desire, predetermination and deliberate causative power of Calvi-god. There is nothing outside of him with which he can ‘work together’ for his will.
The serious Calvinist learns to point 10 fingers in 20 directions at the same time.
rhutchin is a serious Calvinist
So true TS00,
“Secondary means” can mean nothing since for Calvinists all “means” are from God’s hand.
But more importantly….why do you even care what RH says? When a Calvinist (RH in this case) finally answered my question about God’s will, it came out like this:
“God gives people the freedom to disobey His law, so sin is not God’s will, but God has ordained that people sin. As God works all things together for good for His elect, even sin is ultimately His will.”
“…so sin is not God’s will… but God has ordained that people sin. …. even sin is ultimately His will.”
That is the clearest example of a meaningless answer he has ever given, and we can clearly see that he will say anything to protect Calvin.
Even blame God.
He simply produces the script that is used by all, giving us an opportunity to examine it in careful detail. Hopefully, some who have embraced the script unthinkingly, will be challenged to think it through. It is easy to see, from the way they hide and deflect from the more heinous aspects of their theology that they do not find them pleasant. My hope is that some will begin to listen to their hearts, and understand that it is not a rejection of ‘your God-given authority’ to question difficult things. Particularly when there are well thought out alternatives which have been espoused and believed, since before Augustine and Calvin through their hats into the ring. I believe many simply do not know this.
TS00 writes, “In all sincerity, I have never understood what [secondary means} is supposed to mean, or how it supposedly lets God off the hook for anything, if one believes in the determinist cosmos of Calvinism.”
Secondary means refers to God’s use of people or events to accomplish His purposes. For example, God uses Cain to kill Abel. God uses Satan to tempt A/E and Job, God uses the Jews to stone Stephen. Contra to this is God directly involving Himself in the affairs of people, e.g., God chooses Abraham, God chooses Paul, God impregnates Mary.
Then, ‘Calvinism asserts that God both originates and controls all things. That would include so-called secondary means.’
God controls all things because He is sovereign over His creation. God originates all things because He created in Genesis 1, God specified and enforced the penalty of Adam’s sin, and God then causes each person born to Adam to have a corrupted heart and to lack faith. God generally needs only to restrain Satan as with Job until it serves His person to give Satan greater freedom to torment Job or to restrain the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 until He wants them to punish Israel for her sin. Nothing originates outside God and nothing is outside God’s control.
Then, “Calvinism certainly will not allow human beings to originate their own thoughts, desires and actions apart from God’s preexisting determinations,…”
That which originates people’s thoughts, desires, actions is the sin nature combined with a lack of faith. That condition was determined by God and enforced when He creates each person. Thus, corrupt people naturally covet, steal kill, etc. God does not have to put such ideas in their minds – it comes naturally to the depraved nature. However, God understands perfectly the working of the corrupt mind and per Ephesians “works all things according to the counsel of His will…”
Then, “Isn’t everything since the original creation God’s ‘secondary means’ rather than the result of his spoken into existence command?”
With few exceptions, everything happens through secondary means. We have the example where God stands aside and does nothing as people do their thing. As a result, we get the situation described in Genesis 6, “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
All this is essentially what the non-Calvinist also believes as both say God is sovereign. omnipotent, of infinite understanding, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.
rh writes:
“All this is essentially what the non-Calvinist also believes as both say God is sovereign. omnipotent, of infinite understanding, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.”
I would definitely contest that “God then causes each person born to Adam to have a corrupted heart and to lack faith” as I suppose many other non-Calvinists would. Some, like Arminius have been schooled in Calvin’s Total Depravity, and may believe something more or less similar to this, but others, like me, do not accept this concept at all.
I would assert that all men are born innocent, and become guilty only upon sinning. All are born with weak flesh, which makes them susceptible to the temptations of the flesh, and fairly easy prey to the deceits and temptations of Satan. All, unlike Adam, are also born into a world that is filled with sin and sinners, multiplying the problem.
As per faith, we have discussed this before. It it not, in my opinion, something that one ‘possesses’ like a car or a coin, but is a response to a truth claim, just as love is a response to love shown. One cannot be given or have taken from them such personal responses as faith and love, they arise from the individual freely and voluntarily in response to someone or something.
Thus, we do indeed lack faith or love for God until we know and understand who he is and what he offers us. When we gain this understanding, when we understand that Christ was lifted up so that we may see who and what God is about, then we have the individual choice to respond in faith and love, or to reject the truth and/or value of God’s love and grace. Few, if any, but Calvinists believe that we are born wicked and corrupt as the result of God’s desire and work, and that he then reverses his own desire and work for a limited number of people and irresistibly forces upon them a reverse of his curse, and makes them involuntarily a new person who now possesses, even though they did not want it, an unsought and unreturnable ‘gift’ of faith.
TS00 writes, “I would definitely contest that “God then causes each person born to Adam to have a corrupted heart and to lack faith…Thus, we do indeed lack faith or love for God until we know and understand who he is and what he offers us.”
So, make up your mind. Which is it?
As I stated, both. There is no contradiction between faith not being an object withheld by God, and faith having not yet come into existence. This is where the Calvinist is confused or deceptive. We neither do nor can have faith until, first of all we are of an age of understanding; so no infant, straight from the womb, has faith in the goodness and mercy of God. Beautifully, the loving nurture of a mother demonstrates this goodness and mercy, beginning the process of the child’s education.
Secondly, as scripture teaches, we must either hear the message of the gospel or comprehend it from revelation – as is the case when men never hear the gospel message. It is when we are confronted by this knowledge of God – not when we are born – that we make the choice to believe (to faith) or not believe (not faith).
There is no contradiction. Your dichotomy is false.
TS00 writes, “There is no contradiction between faith not being an object withheld by God, and faith having not yet come into existence.”
Earlier, you said, “I would definitely contest that “God then causes each person born to Adam to have a corrupted heart and to lack faith…Thus, we do indeed lack faith or love for God until we know and understand who he is and what he offers us.”
So, you agree that no one is born w/ faith because you say, ‘We neither do nor can have faith until,…” Your complaint seems to be that people are not born with faith, but this has nothing to do with God not giving them faith. OK.
Then, “It is when we are confronted by this knowledge of God – not when we are born – that we make the choice to believe (to faith) or not believe (not faith).”
Hebrews tells us that faith is assurance and conviction. So either one is assured and convicted (has faith) or is not assured and convicted (has no faith). Those who have assurance and conviction (they have faith) then believe while those who do not have assurance and conviction (they do not have faith) do not believe.
The choice is to believe, not to faith or not faith. Either one has faith and believes or one has no faith and does not believe. Faith is the cause of believing (the effect).
rhutchin,
You are SO INCOMPLETE with your definition of faith. Faith is BELIEVING that you will get what you are waiting for, regarding Hebrews 11:1, and James tells us that you had BETTER LIVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE, otherwise you don’t really believe in the first place. NO FAITH.
Living it PROVES your faith. What is the opposite of that? NOT LIVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE PROVES YOU HAVE NO FAITH.
Ed Chapman
And maybe I should correct what I said to say “If Satan can undermine God’s WORD,” instead of “authority.”
Because Calvinists are all about His “authority,” to the point that they defend Calvi-god’s use of his authority in causing sin and unbelief, and then they say he’s “justified” in punishing us for it.
I don’t think Satan minds so much if we uphold God’s “authority,” as long as he can get us to uphold the “authority” of a wicked, twisted version of God – as long as he can erode God’s truth and character to the point that we no longer know what truth is, can no longer trust anything God says, and no longer see Him as the good, righteous, loving, holy God of the Bible.
If Satan can’t get us to stop believing in God, he’ll try to get us to believe in a horrible, untrustworthy, unjust version of God. For not only will this hurt the faith of believers, but it will help create a lot of atheists, those who don’t want anything to do with a “god” like that. Sadly, in that case, it’s the atheists who see more clearly what’s wrong with Calvi-god, while the Calvinistic Christians fiercely cling to and defend their twisted views.
heather writes, “Because Calvinists are all about His “authority,” to the point that they defend Calvi-god’s use of his authority in causing sin and unbelief, and then they say he’s “justified” in punishing us for it.”
Calvinists are all about authority because God is sovereign. In Matthew 28, we read, “Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,…” Now Christ has all authority.
We know from Job that Satan cannot touch Job without God agreeing to it. Thus, Satan is under God’s authority – subordinate to God – and can do nothing on his own accord.
Then, “then [Calvinists] say he’s “justified” in punishing us for it.”
This from Romans 2, “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” God is justified in punishing sinful people because they judge others for X and then turn around and practice X.
Thank you, BR.D. and TS00, for your comments here.
I know you’ve both pointed this out many times, but isn’t it amazing the deceptive language Calvinists use to hide what they really mean! “God understands … He knows what will happen … He sees it all happen … He allows it … Nothing can happen unless God agrees to it …” All of this in Calvinism means “God preplanned it and causes it to happen.” Even “everything is under God’s authority” is misleading because they mean it as “under God’s meticulous control.”
And of course, we all know they have to hide what they really mean. Because if they reveal their theology for the wretchedness it is, then they paint themselves into a corner when it comes to explaining who is responsible for sin. And so they hide what they really mean under layers and layers of rambling, contradictory ideas. (Calvinism is like a house of smoke and mirrors.) This makes their theology sound confusing enough and deep-enough that people just think “Oh, well, I guess they have reasonable answers in there somewhere, even if I can’t really understand it. But since they are the theology teachers and I’m not, I’ll just trust them.”
It’s even more effective if the Calvinist preachers only drip a little of their poison in at a time. That’s how my Calvinist pastor did it. Just a phrase here and there, every few sermons, so that no one saw the whole of it at once. A slow blending of Calvinism with Scripture, until the people can’t discern one from the other.
If Calvinists are so certain that their theology is accurate and God-honoring, why the constant need to wrap it in non-Calvinist language, to hide what they really mean under layers and layers of deceptive words? And if they are so certain that God has already predestined everyone’s eternal destinies and that they cannot change/effect His plans, why the need to play games with their wording? This alone ought to alert us to the fact that something isn’t right with this theology! (I think one of the other commenters here – maybe TS00 – said this too.)
If you have to be less-than-forthright about your theology then there’s something wrong with it!
I agree with Heather
Heather writes: Thank you, BR.D. and TS00, for your comments here.
I know you’ve both pointed this out many times, but isn’t it amazing the deceptive language Calvinists use to hide what they really mean! “God understands … He knows what will happen … He sees it all happen … He allows it … Nothing can happen unless God agrees to it …” All of this in Calvinism means “God preplanned it and causes it to happen.” Even “everything is under God’s authority” is misleading because they mean it as “under God’s meticulous control.”
Usually Calvinism is less than honest: They are almost always using “Marketing Lingo or Lawyer Speak” not simply telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
GraceAdict
Usually Calvinism is less than honest: They are almost always using “Marketing Lingo or Lawyer Speak” not simply telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
br.d
Yes this is a good point!
That’s why Calvinism calls their doctrine “doctrines of grace” – when the TRUTH is – it is doctrines of “good-evil”
Marketing Lingo and Lawyer Speak are great descriptors of it!
Yes! Absolutely! You hit the bulls-eye Heather!
Calvinist’s internally recognize a skill in manipulating language and crafting duplicitous statements gives them a form of power over others. And they convince themselves they are not being dishonest through a thousand justifications. But for the Non-Calvinist – this duplicitous language (when recognized) functions as a RED-FLAG that something must be wrong with their system.
Where does scripture teach Christians to communicate TRUTH through deceptive language tricks?
Dr. Bella Depaulo, Social Scientist calls this “Altruistic dishonesty”
-quote
“Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’. A high percentage of people who rationalize
the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by
rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are
working to protect a ‘target’.
These are called ‘other-oriented’ or ‘altruistic’ dishonesties. Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves
as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt
worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the ‘target’ they do not want people
to see.”
Heather writes:
“It’s even more effective if the Calvinist preachers only drip a little of their poison in at a time. That’s how my Calvinist pastor did it. Just a phrase here and there, every few sermons, so that no one saw the whole of it at once. A slow blending of Calvinism with Scripture, until the people can’t discern one from the other.”
This is exactly what my Calvi-pastor did, even though he was starting an openly Calvinist Church. He knew that all of the non-Calvinists coming through the doors, looking for something that was lacking in the entertainment oriented seeker churches, had no real understanding of what Calvinism was. And he liked it that way.
Rather than openly declare what Calvinism asserts, having classes, bible studies and open discussion, he assured (falsely) that he believed in both determinism and free will (so-called compatibilism) and just taught whatever scripture said. This sounds so convincing, as long as you do not dig deep enough to understand just what determinism entails, and quickly discover that it allows no room for free will.
So we were brainwashed a little at a time, over a course of years, into accepting certain Calvinist terms and worldviews. He would never, ever, have thrown open the doors to the whole shabang.
Heather writes:
“If you have to be less-than-forthright about your theology then there’s something wrong with it!”
This I heartily second as well. When the pastor began reproving the congregation for not bringing new people in, I found myself thinking: I know why I don’t invite my neighbors to church. If I represented the church’s theology accurately I would have to say, ‘I would love for you to come to church with me. Who knows, God might even love you enough to give you faith and keep you from eternal conscious torment in a fiery hot hell. If not, and he made you to burn, what do you have to lose but one hour? Isn’t it worth it to at least try your luck?’ Somehow, I just didn’t think my neighbors would find that too persuasive.
Have you ever heard a Calvinist acknowledge this reality? I have not. In fact, when challenged, all revert to their script, almost always ending up with what they see as their trump card, ‘What about Romans 9?’ They simply avoid, even in their own mind, the heinous, unpalatable truths of their own system, punting directly to, ‘Hey, I just believe whatever scripture teaches, unlike you people who try to pervert scripture into something more man-pleasing, that makes you feel better.’
My favorite Calvinist just pulled this on me. I simply could not convince him that for every Calvinist interpretation of any prooftext there was an equally or more convincing non-Calvinist interpretation. They have been brainwashed that they have the ‘right’ interpretation, and that all of the world hates them and their interpretations because they want something that lifts up man.
It couldn’t possibly be that, actually, the spirit of God within them challenged men to question the heinous, cruel, unjust caricature that Calvinism teaches. It couldn’t possibly be that it was the dishonor and discrediting of a loving, just and good God that led individuals to reject the Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9 and other Calvi prooftexts that they were once taught to repeating unquestioningly.
TS00 writes, “he assured (falsely) that he believed in both determinism and free will (so-called compatibilism)”
The “free will” to which the pastor referred is that exercised without faith. Once a person hears the word and receives faith, he exercises a free will augmented by faith. So, we have two “free wills” – one exercised before faith is present and one exercised after faith is present.
rhutchin
The “free will” to which the pastor referred is that exercised without faith. Once a person hears the word and receives faith, he exercises a free will augmented by faith. So, we have two “free wills” – one exercised before faith is present and one exercised after faith is present.
br.d
Actually in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) they are both the same thing – in that whether before or after – Calvin’s god has to AUTHOR everything a creature can will.
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he *INSPIRE* it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
Actually, what the pastor was telling us – and it was more than a throwaway comment, it involved many conversations – was that we could have our cake and eat it too. We didn’t have to ‘really’ believe in Calvinism, because scripture taught both. We just needed to leave it to ‘mystery’ and believe that both are somehow true. This is the deception I most resent, as it stole many years of my life and led me to bring my children up under faulty teaching.
TS00 writes, “We didn’t have to ‘really’ believe in Calvinism, because scripture taught both.”
There is one unique difference. The non-Calvinist believes that free will can be exercised without faith and the Calvinist believes that free will can only be exercised when faith is present. In context, the free will decision here concerns salvation. The Calvinist says that a person cannot be free to choose salvation without first receiving faith.
Br.d., Graceadict, and TS00, Excellent comments! Keep ’em coming. I especially like: “Calvinist’s internally recognize a skill in manipulating language and crafting duplicitous statements gives them a form of power over others. And they convince themselves they are not being dishonest through a thousand justifications. But for the Non-Calvinist – this duplicitous language (when recognized) functions as a RED-FLAG that something must be wrong with their system.”
(And I am sorry, TS00, about your family being caught up in Calvinism. I do pray for them. It’s hard to watch people refuse to consider that something might be wrong with Calvinism, hoping that they’ll realize something is wrong before they’re too far gone. It’s got to be especially hard being your own family.)
And the resident dogmatic Calvinist here says: “Satan is under God’s authority – subordinate to God – and can do nothing on his own accord.” That’s two different things, but trying to make it sound like they are one and the same.
“Being under God’s authority” is not the same thing as “can do nothing on his own accord.” Satan cannot do anything that God doesn’t allow him to do (none of us can), but Scripture is full of times when we do things of our own accord, when we do things God doesn’t want us to do.
We need to pay close attention to the tricks Calvinists play, like tagging a lie onto the truth, thinking that you’ll gulp them down as one thing. A little bait-and-switch.
heather writes, “but Scripture is full of times when we do things of our own accord, when we do things God doesn’t want us to do. ”
We can only do things God doesn’t want us to do.with God’s approval. This because God is aware of everything we do, or want to do, and has the power to involve Himself in our affairs to get any outcome He wants.
rhutchin
We can only do things God doesn’t want us to do.with God’s approval. This because God is aware of everything we do, or want to do, and has the power to involve Himself in our affairs to get any outcome He wants.
br.d
And Calvin’s god only approves what he AUTHORS/DECREES – nothing otherwise is PERMITTED.
Therefore there is no such thing as Calvin’s god NOT being involved in human affairs – as they area actually his affairs.
The human involvement is nothing more than Calvin’s god using human’s as instruments for his affairs.
br.d writes, “Therefore there is no such thing as Calvin’s god NOT being involved in human affairs – as they area actually his affairs.
The human involvement is nothing more than Calvin’s god using human’s as instruments for his affairs.”
This shown in the examples of Joseph and his brothers, the Assyrians of Isaiah 10, the crucifixion of Christ, and many other examples.
br.d
Therefore there is no such thing as Calvin’s god NOT being involved in human affairs – as they area actually his affairs.
The human involvement is nothing more than Calvin’s god using human’s as instruments for his affairs.”
rhutchin
This shown in the examples of Joseph and his brothers, the Assyrians of Isaiah 10, the crucifixion of Christ, and many other examples.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin for another excellent of DOUBLE-SPEAK. :-]
First they are “human affairs”
And then they are not actually “human affairs” – but Calvin’s god using humans as instruments for “his affairs”.
Great example!
But remember – I never make the silly mistake of conflating Calvinism with scripture. :-]
As it turns scripture into IRRATIONAL DOUBLE-SPEAK
br.d writes, “First they are “human affairs”
And then they are not actually “human affairs” – but Calvin’s god using humans as instruments for “his affairs”.”
God involves Himself in human affairs to use humans for His affairs. For example, God involves Himself with Joseph and his brothers in order to send Joseph to Egypt. As Joseph said, ““But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.”
br.d
Per rhutchin: “First they are “human affairs”
Then they are not actually “human affairs” – but Calvin’s god using humans as instruments for “his affairs”.”
rhutchin
God involves Himself in human affairs to use humans for His affairs.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin – this is an excellent example of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK
The language here is designed to INFER a degree of creaturely autonomy that doesn’t exist in Calvinism.
There are only Calvin’s god’s affairs – which he DECREES at the foundation of the world.
He uses humans as instruments to carry out those affairs (“his affairs”) which he DECREED come to pass.
In Theological Determinism humans are not permitted to determine anything for themselves – everything is determined for them – at the foundation of the world. Therefore technically speaking – humans have no affairs they can call their own.
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a DETERMINIST wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points. :-]
Rhutchin says: “We can only do things God doesn’t want us to do.with God’s approval. This because God is aware of everything we do, or want to do, and has the power to involve Himself in our affairs to get any outcome He wants.”
Are you sure you’re a Calvinist!?! Cuz I think they’d kick you out of the Calvinist Club for most of the things you say.
Ah, ah, careful here. I disagree with rh’s “We can only do things God doesn’t want us to do.with God’s approval. This because God is aware of everything we do, or want to do, and has the power to involve Himself in our affairs to get any outcome He wants.”
Don’t forget one must carefully examine every word the Calvinist employs, as he often chooses those which, at first glance, appear to hold the same meaning you do; but careful study reveals a slightly different meaning.
For instance, the word ‘approval’. One might read that and grant it the meaning ‘permission’. But in reality, these are two very distinct things. God indeed is sovereignly in control of the entire created universe, and it is only by his permission that anything can come into being. But that is entirely different than asserting that all which comes to pass has God’s ‘approval’.
I would contest that God ever approves of selfishness, wickedness, abuse, oppression or evil of any kind. It is only because of his choice to create being with free will that he in effect granted them the permission to do good or evil. Never, ever does scripture assert that he has granted approval of evil – in fact, it states the exact opposite repeatedly.
Note also the cleverly stated “and has the power to involve Himself in our affairs to get any outcome He wants.” Although you and I would grant the truth of God’s limitless power, we would not grant that God’s having such power, yet choosing to not use it to negate the free will he gave his creatures, means he approves of their choices.
We also would not grant that God gets whatever outcome he wants. Scripture tells us that God desires that none perish. Yet asserts that many will. Scripture asserts that God desires that all men turn from wickedness and live, yet many refuse to turn and make themselves fit only for destruction. Scripture tells us that God does not desire sacrifice, yet the sin of man required him to set up an entire system of sacrifices. Scripture tells us that God does not desire divorce, yet because of the hardness of men’s hearts and his own compassion he granted people the right to divorce rather than remain in situations that would be extremely dangerous emotionally, if not physically. And so on.
All of this evil, which did indeed come to pass, did not arise with God’s approval. He makes it clear that he not only disapproves of wickedness, but will, if we do not turn from it, vent his wrath upon us. I don’t know about you, but that does not sound like ‘approval’ to me. 😉
Even the youngest of toddlers understand the difference between approval and disapproval, even before they have any concept of the word. The infant understands, and covets his or her parents’ approval, as they cheer when she manages to get her spoon to her mouth or he dares his first solo steps. They also quickly grasp the disapproval behind the words ‘No’ or ‘Please don’t do that.’
Like the loving parent, God will not tie our hands together to keep us from throwing our peas, nor will he chain us to our beds to keep us from wandering into the living room and handling the precious ‘untouchables’ on the coffee table. He makes us aware of what he desires and expects, and warns us of the consequences to disobedience, sometimes to protect us, sometimes to protect other persons or objects. And sometimes, because both God and our parents are too loving to keep us in a cage, we do disobey, and do the very things we were expressly told not to do. Both God and our parents know that allowing us freedom of movement entails the risk that we might get into trouble.
This does not mean that they are granting approval for anything we might choose to do. Nor does it mean that they do not have the power, should they wish, to physically restrain us from ever getting into trouble. In a sense, they are, by granting us a degree of freedom, allowing us the possibility of doing undesirable acts; but no one can rightly say that they are determining or approving of those acts.
The Calvinist will very cleverly word his statements so that they appear to say one thing, while upon closer inspection, they can be seen to have at least the potential to be interpreted quite differently from what our first impression of them indicates.
So true TS00…
I get tired of RH and his word games… That is why I think of Calvinism as having “Marketing Lingo and Lawyer speak”
A couple days ago I posted regarding Reprobation in Calvinism…taking the spin off of what they say and getting down to what is actually taught. Here is another shot at a shorter version:
In Calvinism Reprobation is: the irresistible, unconditional decision and decree in Eternity past where Sovereign God decided to purposefully design and create many persons with an evil hardened heart having no ability or possibility of ever repenting and believing.
The creation of these people to be unrepentantly evil was completely due to an intentional design by God who wanted this precise outcome. God’s secret will and desire was to have these multitudes of evil beings upon which He could freely express His wrath.
Furthermore, Sovereign God intentionally made them this way so that they would in some form “merit” damnation and He could appear “just” in destroying them.
Additionally to confirm and seal His irresistible reprobation God purposefully limited the atonement. He purposefully excluded the many from Jesus’ substitutionary sacrifice on the cross.
These reprobates hate God but only because God first hated them and designed them to be haters of God.
They reject God because God first rejected them and designed them to be rejecters of God.
They do not love God because God first refused to love them and designed them to act just as they do.
Leighton just posted a short 8 min video…you have got to watch this until the end…it has two Calvinist guys who walked away from their faith, it is soooo insightful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mA_v_qTYsk
The video is called: Answering the Calvinist’s most popular argument”
GraceAdict writes, “In Calvinism Reprobation is: the irresistible, unconditional decision and decree in Eternity past where Sovereign God decided to purposefully design and create many persons with an evil hardened heart having no ability or possibility of ever repenting and believing.’
Calvinists would say, “…and create ALL persons…” In Calvinism, ALL people are born (created) reprobate and in need of salvation.
Then, “Furthermore, Sovereign God intentionally made them this way so that they would in some form “merit” damnation and He could appear “just” in destroying them. ”
The merit for damnation is based on two points:
1. “There is none righteous, no, not one;”
2. “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
Then, as Paul argues, “So then [being a child of promise] is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”
rutchin
In Calvinism, ALL people are born (created) reprobate and in need of salvation.
br.d
TRUE!
Per Calvinism’s doctrine of the divine potter – who DESIGNS the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
rhutchin
The merit for damnation is based on two points:
1. “There is none righteous, no, not one;”
2. “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
br.d
So we see that Calvin’s god DESIGNS creatures by default to “merit damnation”.
This is why Non-Calvinists see Calvin’s god sets thousands of houses on fire so that he care rescue a few
rutchin
In Calvinism, ALL people are born (created) reprobate and in need of salvation.
GA: According to John Calvin the Reprobate has no possibility of ever being saved. Now it seems RH is going to redefine Reprobate as all are born in sin. NOT the same thing…. you are doing fancy dancing again. It is interesting how Calvinism just keeps redefining words over and over again. Even their own terms are elastic and keep changing form.
GraceAdict writes, ” According to John Calvin the Reprobate has no possibility of ever being saved.”
So, a distinction between Reprobate and reprobate.
rh writes:
“In Calvinism, ALL people are born (created) reprobate and in need of salvation.
Then, “Furthermore, Sovereign God intentionally made them this way so that they would in some form “merit” damnation and He could appear “just” in destroying them. ”
The merit for damnation is based on two points:
1. “There is none righteous, no, not one;”
2. “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
Then, as Paul argues, “So then [being a child of promise] is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”
A prime illustration of the lack of logic and/or justice within Calvinism. God made people – irresistibly, through no choice or fault of their own – reprobate, then is supposedly ‘just’ in destroying them for being the way he made them. Priceless.
TS00 writes, ‘God made people – irresistibly, through no choice or fault of their own – reprobate, then is supposedly ‘just’ in destroying them for being the way he made them. ”
This on the basis of Romans 2, “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”
Excellent summary! I am going to have to compose a file for these!
RH writes: “In Calvinism, ALL people are born (created) reprobate and in need of salvation.”
…So, a distinction between Reprobate and reprobate.”
GA: Notice what RH is doing he is even changing Calvin’s own definition of Reprobate into (ALL people are born Reprobate or all people are sinners.) This is NOT Reprobation in the Calvinist paradigm.
RH statement is simply NOT True in the Calvinist systematic where;
The REPROBATE are the NON-elect, the never loved ones, the ones for whom Christ did not die, the ones that it was His pleasure to destroy.
IN CONTRAST there is a category of people who were never Reprobated, they are the Elect Ones, the Ones who were Always Loved even in Eternity past, Because God Loved these ones they are the Only ones for whom Christ died on the cross (Limited Atonement). The Elect are NEVER in the Category of the REPROBATE. RH — tries to conflate being born into sin with being Reprobated. Calvinism redefines Biblical terms so why not redefine Calvinism’s terms when you need to appear softer and kinder than your system really is.
RH tries to soften the Calvinist doctrine of REPROBATION by making it sound like even the ELECT start off REPROBATED and God steps in and Undoes the REPROBATION that is NOT what the doctrine teaches. That is why Calvin had to call people childish and ignorant when they did not clearly stick with this idea of Reprobation: When Calvinism speaks Truth about it’s system the Reprobate is NEVER the same as the ELECT even before their conversion…as RH tries to say in the statement above. “ALL people are born reprobate”
“Many professing a desire to defend the deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that anyone is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without it’s opposite, reprobation. Bk 3 chap 23 para 1
*NOTICE CALVIN SAYS ALL ARE NOT THE SAME*
“…the predestination of the reprobate by predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. 3Chap 21 para 5
Vincent Cheung : A vessel cannot say to the potter, “Why have you made me like this?” Likewise, no one can challenge God’s decision to make a person into a reprobate, into a vessel of dishonor and of wrath.
Herman Hoeksema – Calvinist
“…reprobation is a divine necessity. In this sense, the reprobate exist for the sake of the elect. They are in a certain sense the price, the ransom, which God pays for the higher glory of His children…
“….I can say that God sovereignly predestined some to destruction in order to glorify Himself…”
“What is the place of reprobation in that scheme? God has reprobated as well as chosen. Taken by itself, reprobation is the decree of God in which He has determined, as sovereignly as in election, that some individuals should not enter eternal glory, but are destined for destruction. Thus it should be expressed.”
A.W. Pink “When we say that God is Sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses and God does not love everybody.”
The loved are the Elect and ONLY the Elect. The NOT loved are the Reprobate…never are the two in the same category of being REPROBATED. Nice try and trying to make your system “look” nicer than it really is. Marketing Lingo and Lawyer Speak.
TS00 writes, “For instance, the word ‘approval’. One might read that and grant it the meaning ‘permission’. But in reality, these are two very distinct things.”
I don’t use the term, “permission.”
In the account of Job, did Satan have to get God’s approval before he could terrorize Job? If you think that is the wrong term to use, then give me the term you would use and I will use that – that should remove a detriment to discussion on this issue.
Then, ‘…we would not grant that God’s having such power, yet choosing to not use it to negate the free will he gave his creatures, means he approves of their choices.”
OK. Give me a term that means, “[God] choosing to not use [His power] to negate the free will he gave his creatures.”
Also, it seems you accept the point that people do not automatically have faith, so do you accept the point that faith affects the “free” in “free will”?
rhutchin
In the account of Job, did Satan have to get God’s approval before he could terrorize Job?
br.d
Some Calvinists have a love relationship with their own DOUBLE-SPEAK :-]
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly……can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He…..COMMANDS….they are….FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11.)
Calvin’s god determines every thought that will enter into Satan’s brain.
And the Calvinist want’s to call that process – Satan getting “approval”.
What a hoot!!! :-]
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
rhutchin
Give me a term that means, “[God] choosing to not use [His power] to negate the free will he gave his creatures.”
br.d
This is an excellent example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t AUTHOR/DECREE/WILL every neurological impulse that will ever appear in the creature’s brain.
Not to mention AUTHOR/DECREE/WILL every part of every micro-aspect of the creature’s will.
Calvin’s god doesn’t negate what he AUTHORS.
And since he AUTHORS everything – it LOGICALLY follows – there is nothing to negate. :-]
Heather – to RH
Are you sure you’re a Calvinist!?! Cuz I think they’d kick you out of the Calvinist Club for most of the things you say.
br.d
DOUBLE-SPEAK is the Calvinists most prized skill :-]
thttps://www.123rf.com/photo_2756242_envious-two-faced-woman.html
Very good catch, TS00. You are right in that I heard “permission” when he said “approval.” (Not that I thought he was really saying he thinks God merely gives us permission. I know he’s too far in the Calvinist camp to say that. But I was just pointing out how so much of what he says can be read non-Calvinistically. But … therein lies the ease of deception!)
While I might say that “by God’s approval” means that “God allowed me to make my decision, that He approved of my right to make my decision and let it happen” … that is not at all the same thing as the Calvinist’s view that “God approves of every decision we make (obviously because Calvi-god causes it to happen, according to them, even things He says He disapproves of).”
And like you pointed out, the fact that God has the power doesn’t mean He always uses His power. And the fact that God can get any outcome He wants doesn’t mean He does get every outcome He wants.
Oh, the depth of deception and cover-up in Calvinism is incredible!
You really have to be so careful with everything they say. Because I think we do exactly what you said – we take certain terms and phrases for granted, assuming that they are using it non-Calvinistically. When in reality, they are saying something completely different. But it escapes our notice so easily (especially if we don’t know to look for it) that we don’t even realize we are buying into a twisted theology. Not until it’s too late.
Exactly like you said: “The Calvinist will very cleverly word his statements so that they appear to say one thing, while upon closer inspection, they can be seen to have at least the potential to be interpreted quite differently from what our first impression of them indicates.”
And that’s how it has spread so easily and un-opposed.
heather writes, “While I might say that “by God’s approval” means that “God allowed me to make my decision, that He approved of my right to make my decision and let it happen” … that is not at all the same thing as the Calvinist’s view that “God approves of every decision we make…”
But it does. If by “God allowed me,” you mean that God made a conscious decision that you should make your decision, then that is Calvinism. This because God has infinite understanding of heather and understood the decision you would make so that “God allowing you” becomes “God works all things (even heather’s decisions) according to the counsel of His will.”
rhutchin knows he’s playing games with the term “approves” here – in order to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.
Calvinism’s love-hate relationship with divine determinism :-]
Rhutchin says: “In Calvinism, ALL people are born (created) reprobate and in need of salvation.”
How exactly does that work? Since the elect are supposedly elected (predestined for salvation) from the beginning of time?
So … does God predestine them for heaven before they are born … and then they revert back to being a reprobate when they are born, but then miraculously become elected again?
Because that sounds like they are saved and then lost and then saved? So much for “can’t lose your salvation”. If they are predestined for heaven before time began, they can’t be born as a reprobate. If they are predestined for hell, they can’t suddenly acquire salvation. You are confusing your already confused theology.
heather asks, “How exactly does that work? Since the elect are supposedly elected (predestined for salvation) from the beginning of time?”
All people start out the same – unrighteous people who display their unrighteousness through their sin. In Ephesians< Paul tells the believers, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself,…" God's promise was to bring them to salvation in the course of time since He had chosen them before the foundation of the world – and so He had done.
Rhutchin says: “If by “God allowed me,” you mean that God made a conscious decision that you should make your decision, then that is Calvinism.”
No, that is not Calvinism. Calvinism is not “God allowed me to make a decision.”
Calvinism is “Calvi-god caused me to make the decision he fore-ordained and planted in my head, and I had no control over it.”
Big difference! Stop trying to wrap Calvinism in non-Calvinism clothes. It’s pathetic and desperate and deceptive.
Once again I ask, have you ever gotten on your knees and prayed, giving God permission to correct you if you’re wrong? Or do you just plow ahead in your own “understanding” and “reasoning”?
If you are right in your view of Him, then you should have no fears about asking Him if you’re wrong (and really meaning it). But if you are not willing to do this, not willing to get God’s opinion on your theology, then maybe you should keep your mouth closed until you are willing to ask His opinion. (And if you are resistant to asking Him, that alone should tell you a lot about where your heart is.)
This issue is ultimately between you and God. But if it were me, I would be very afraid of standing before God and saying things like, “Yeah, I know the Bible says You love all people BUT …” and “I know You said you didn’t want anyone to perish BUT …” and “I know You said that Jesus died for all people BUT …” and “I know You said to seek You and to choose whom we will serve BUT …” etc.
Calvinism has to add “but …” to most verses in the Bible, to twist them to fit their theology. I call it “The Calvinist’s Big ‘But’,” and it’s going to be what gets Calvinists in trouble when they stand before God. If you have to add “yeah, but …” to God’s plainly-clear, easily-understood Word then something is wrong! And if I were you, I’d figure out what it is that’s wrong. Because I don’t think “Yeah, I know what You said, BUT …” is going to be an acceptable excuse before God for changing what He clearly, plainly, repeatedly said.
You had me rolling on the floor with this one. Now I will forever remember ‘Calvinists will be deprived of heaven because of their ‘big butts’. Still laughing. And hitting the treadmill. 😉
More seriously, can you imagine thinking you will someday stand before God and say: ‘I know you said ‘A’, and everyone around me said you meant ‘A’, but John Calvin, the only person who really understood scripture, said ‘A’ meant ‘non-A’. Thus, I was deceived into reading all ‘A’s as ‘non-A’s’.
Heather and TS00,
Sir Mix-A-Lot anybody?
Dedicated to rhutchin:
I like BIG BUTS AND I CANNOT LIE!
Ed Chapman
heather writes, “Calvinism is “Calvi-god caused me to make the decision he fore-ordained and planted in my head, and I had no control over it.”
God caused you to be born without faith. Without faith, you cannot be saved. God causes you to reject salvation by not giving you faith so that you cannot be saved until you hear the gospel and receive faith. So, yes, God did not plant faith in your head (or heart) and you had no control over that. What do you think God has actually done to you if not this?
Then, “Once again I ask, have you ever gotten on your knees and prayed, giving God permission to correct you if you’re wrong? Or do you just plow ahead in your own “understanding” and “reasoning”? ”
As is true of believers, in general, I ask God for understanding and wisdom every day. I often pray the “Lord’s prayer” which is a petition to God to work in my life as He wills.
rhutchin,
In my Christian world, new born babies are NOT LOST in the first place, therefore, they don’t need faith, they don’t need a savior, they are not lost to begin with.
The only way to be LOST is to have a CONSCIENCE of good and evil…just like Adam and Eve got when they GOT KNOWLEDGE. God did not sit them down to inform them of the BIG LIST. Didn’t give them the Ten Commandments, either.
You can find NT justification of this in Romans 7. The only way that a person is DEAD IN HIS SINS AND TRESPASSES is when he DIES spiritually. And that don’t come until you get KNOWLEDEGE of good and evil.
The only thing we inherited from Adam was NATURAL DEATH OF THE BODY…not spiritual death. We each DIE a spiritual death. LIFE COMES BEFORE DEATH in both natural and spiritual.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
God causes you to reject salvation by not giving you faith
br.d
Calvinist thinking is all to often non-sequitur thinking! :-]
Rejection of a proposition doesn’t logically entail lack of faith – it simply entails lack of acceptance of a proposition.
You could however argue that Calvin’s god DESIGNS/CAUSES people to have NEGATIVE FAITH.
That would be LOGICALLY coherent in Theological Determinism.
br.d wrote, “Rejection of a proposition doesn’t logically entail lack of faith – it simply entails lack of acceptance of a proposition.”
hetaher had written, “Calvinism is “Calvi-god caused me to make the decision he fore-ordained and planted in my head, and I had no control over it.” So, the context was that of a person rejecting salvation. I don’t know what your comment has to do with that.
rhutchin
God causes you to reject salvation by not giving you faith
br.d
Rejection of a proposition doesn’t logically entail lack of faith – it simply entails lack of acceptance of a proposition.”
rhutchin
hetaher had written, “Calvinism is “Calvi-god caused me to make the decision he fore-ordained and planted in my head, and I had no control over it.” So, the context was that of a person rejecting salvation. I don’t know what your comment has to do with that.
br,d
Easy if one thinks logically.
My comment has to do with your statement (see above)
You know – the one you just happened to remove – before you responded that you didn’t know what my comment had to do with. :-]
TS00, I can’t imagine standing before God as a Calvinist. Sadly, I think most of them will be truly surprised by what He says, but they will ultimately realize and admit that they did, in fact, look right at the Bible’s verses and say “yeah, but …” or “I know God said that, but what He really meant was …” As if we humans can improve on what God said. As if He needs us to clear up the confusing Scriptures He must have hastily written down, before He could get His thoughts together enough to say what He means and mean what He says.
Ed Chapman: “Sir Mix-A-Lot anybody? Dedicated to rhutchin: I like BIG BUTS AND I CANNOT LIE!”
Love it! That’s gonna be stuck in my head all day now. 🙂
For anyone who’s interested, this is a good video from Kevin at Beyond the Fundamentals about how Calvinists wrongly read the Word, particularly the verse about “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him”: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=beyond+the+fundamentals+john&&view=detail&mid=03B83CBACCB8D92A300703B83CBACCB8D92A3007&rvsmid=726DCF7CFE3A7CF3168D726DCF7CFE3A7CF3168D&FORM=VDRVRV
It’s long, but worth it.
heather writes, “For anyone who’s interested, this is a good video from Kevin at Beyond the Fundamentals about how Calvinists wrongly read the Word, particularly the verse about “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him”: ”
I am 40 minutes into this video and Kevin is focusing on John 6:44. Kevin should know that the Calvinist understanding of 6:44 is based on 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” but Kevin has yet to mention 6:37. In effect Kevin has set up a false situation that he can then argue against.
Around the 36 minute mark, Kevin says to ask the Calvinist, “You mean that God withholds something from those that perish that prevents them being saved?” Obviously, the Calvinist would answer, “Yes – God withholds faith, and this seen in Ephesians 2.” Kevin ignores this entirely, (so far) but it seems that he would go right to that Calvinist argument. Again, we see Kevin creating a false argument to argue against.
Kevin seems to have a strong bias against Calvinism but he doesn’t deal with the Calvinist arguments directly. He goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with Calvinism but claims to be arguing against Calvinism.
Kevin does make an interesting statement. He says that 6:44 was the rule before Christ was crucified but after Christ was crucified, 12:32 “if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” becomes the rule.
rhutchin
I am 40 minutes into this video and Kevin is focusing on John 6:44. Kevin should know that the Calvinist understanding of 6:44 is based on 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” but Kevin has yet to mention 6:37. In effect Kev
br.d
Just because someone doesn’t address one particular version of a Calvinist interpretation – it doesn’t follow that that person is creating a false argument. It simply means they didn’t address that particular version of a Calvinist interpretation. And its unlikely one can address every particular variation. So your false argument claim fails.
br.d writes, “Just because someone doesn’t address one particular version of a Calvinist interpretation…”
LOL!!! Yeah, the major argument of the Calvinists. Maybe, you should watch the video.
br.d
Just because someone doesn’t address one particular version of a Calvinist interpretation…”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Yeah, the major argument of the Calvinists. Maybe, you should watch the video.
br.d
Well – Its been my observation with your – thousand and one – versions of things – (The Calvinist says this and The Calvinism says that) – they are often pretty my your particular claim. And Calvinists are often like snow-flakes – every one different – and each one claiming to his version to be the golden standard. So I’m certainly not worried about it. :-]
br.d writes, “Well – ”
OK. Don’t watch the video.
Rhutchin says: “As is true of believers, in general, I ask God for understanding and wisdom every day. I often pray the “Lord’s prayer” which is a petition to God to work in my life as He wills.”
That’s nice and all. But that’s not what I asked.
The Pharisees had wisdom. Satan has wisdom. All of them could quote the Scriptures back and forth. But they had the wisdom they wanted to have, not the wisdom that comes from God. No matter how spiritual it seemed to them.
I asked if you’ve prayed and asked God to correct you if you’re wrong. Have you given Him expressed permission to tell you that you’re wrong, if you’re wrong? Or do you assume you are right and don’t need to be corrected? Do you assume that your wisdom and understanding are coming from God?
Satan knows Scripture well, and twists Scripture well. He disguises himself as an angel of Light, convincing people that his lies are truth. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15: And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Don’t hide behind “as is true of believers” or “in general.” I am asking if YOU YOURSELF ever said, “God, correct me if I am wrong. I really want to and need to know if I am wrong in the way I am understanding Your Word so that I don’t end up spreading cleverly-packaged lies and profaning Your holy name. I give you permission right now to correct me if I am misunderstanding Your Word at all, to show me what the truth really is.” (And don’t just pray this once. Pray it until you really mean it, and until God answers.)
If you are bristling at this suggestion or resistant to it, then that’s a clue as to where your heart really is and who’s sitting on the Throne in your life.
I do not suggest this in a spirit of condescension or bitterness, but out of deep concern for your heart, mind, spirit, and eternal soul. And I do not just recommend this to you, but to all who call themselves Christians. And I would love to be able to recommend this to those at my church, who are slowly falling under the influence of Calvinism. But … they don’t want it. They don’t want to consider they might be wrong or are being misled. They want to continue in their delusions.
It’s no wonder that Jesus spoke in parables and that God veils Himself to a degree and that Jesus said don’t throw your pearls to pigs. If people don’t want the Truth, there’s no point in shoving it right in their faces. They will never consider their need for the Truth, until and unless they are willing to see that they don’t have it and that they need it.
Rhutchin, I truly mean this: I will pray for you. May God fill you with wisdom and knowledge and truth (but you have to be willing to see it, as He shows you). May He surround you with His heavenly angels to keep evil away from you so that you can see the truth without any interference or distractions or blinders from the evil one. I truly think that God can use you almost like a Paul, turning you from someone who fought the Truth to one of the greatest evangelizers. You have a lot of Biblical knowledge and spunk and dedication to your beliefs, and you could be a great tool in God’s hand for spreading His Truth.
But first you have to make sure that what you have is really GOD’S Truth, wisdom, and understanding. You have to give Him permission to correct you if you’re wrong.
I will not be commenting here for awhile after this. I have spent too much time here already, and I have to get back to focusing on my work around the house. But I will be praying for you. God bless!
heather writes, “The Pharisees had wisdom. Satan has wisdom…not the wisdom that comes from God.”
I think it obvious that if I am asking God for wisdom, then He gives me His wisdom. That wisdom would encompass an understanding of the Scriptures. As Paul said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,…” In asking for wisdom, I am asking for reproof and correction (among other things). So, when you ask, “I asked if you’ve prayed and asked God to correct you if you’re wrong,” it seems to me that asking for wisdom is understood to include that.
rhutchin
I ask God for understanding and wisdom every day. I often pray the “Lord’s prayer” which is a petition to God to work in my life as He wills.”
br.d
rhutchin (as a Theological Determinist) is contradicting his own belief system – if he thinks he has the ability to discern between TRUTH and FALSE and thereby have understanding and wisdom. You see rhutchin rejects Libertarian Free choices. And embraces instead compatiblistic free will choices.
Now in Libertarian Free-will choices – God sets before the person both TRUTH and FALSE -and permits the person to determine his own perception of what is TRUE.
But in compatiblist free-will choices – Calvin’s god determines what the person’s perceptions will be – and the person has no way of knowing whether that perception is TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines that.
An example of this in Calvinism is that LARGE MIXTURE of Calvinists whom Calvin’s god -quote “holds out salvation as a savor of condemnation”.
rhutchin will say that these Calvinist’s have the perception that they are elect – when in fact they are not. And since rhutchin embraces compatiblilistic free-will choices – he believes Calvin’s god determined those Calvinists to have that false perception.
So rhutchin knows that Calvin’s god determines Calvinists to perceive things as TRUE that are in fact FALSE.
And rhutchin knows that Calvin’s god determines Calvinists to perceive things as FALSE that are in fact TRUE.
So the bottom line for rhutchin is that he has no idea after he asks for wisdom whether or not Calvin’s god is going to give him FALSE perceptions.
So much for asking for wisdom! :-]
br.d writes, “rhutchin (as a Theological Determinist) is contradicting his own belief system – if he thinks he has the ability to discern between TRUTH and FALSE and thereby have understanding and wisdom. ”
I don’t have that ability – thus, I ask God for understanding and wisdom. In James, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”
Then, “Now in Libertarian Free-will choices – God sets before the person both TRUTH and FALSE -and permits the person to determine his own perception of what is TRUE.”
LFW can only exist when a person has faith and faith requires that one hear the word. God tells us His truth and commands our adherence to His truth. God also identifies what is false and tells us to avoid it. The person with faith does not have to determine truth – he need only trust God’s word to tell us truth.
Then, “But in compatiblist free-will choices – Calvin’s god determines what the person’s perceptions will be – and the person has no way of knowing whether that perception is TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines that.”
Compatibilist free will choice is choice without faith and without truth. One does as he desires. God determined that.
Then, “rhutchin will say that these Calvinist’s have the perception that they are elect – when in fact they are not. And since rhutchin embraces compatiblilistic free-will choices – he believes Calvin’s god determined those Calvinists to have that false perception.”
That is what Jesus said – “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” – isn’t it?
Then, “So the bottom line for rhutchin is that he has no idea after he asks for wisdom whether or not Calvin’s god is going to give him FALSE perceptions. ”
I have the assurance and conviction that God gives His wisdom to those who ask for wisdom. No false perceptions there.
br.d
rhutchin (as a Theological Determinist) is contradicting his own belief system – if he thinks he has the ability to discern between TRUTH and FALSE and thereby have understanding and wisdom. ”
rhutchin
I don’t have that ability – thus, I ask God for understanding and wisdom. …..etc
br.d
Only if Calvin’s god determines you to ask – and then Calvin’s god may give you false perceptions like he does the LARGE MIXTURE of Calvinists to whom he holds out salvation as a savor of condemnation. In Theological determinism you don’t have any ability to know whether or not Calvin’s god has determined you to perceive falsehoods any more than they do.
Now in Libertarian Free-will choices – God sets before the person both TRUTH and FALSE -and permits the person to determine his own perception of what is TRUE.”
rhutchin
LFW can only exist when a person has faith and faith requires that one hear the word. …..etc
br.d
There you go with the DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS again.
As a Calvinist you hold the Libertarian Free will does not exist at all for the creature.
Only Compatibilistic free-will exists for you.
But in compatiblist free-will choices – Calvin’s god determines what the person’s perceptions will be – and the person has no way of knowing whether that perception is TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines that.”
rhutchin
Compatibilist free will choice is choice without faith and without truth. One does as he desires. God determined that.
br.d
FALSE
Compatibilism is the thesis that Determinism in any form is compatible with human freedom, and that indeterminism is not compatible or at best incoherent.
Theopedia
-quote
It seeks to show that God’s exhaustive sovereignty is compatible with human freedom.
You’re bouncing around like a ping-pong game again.
Must be the phase of the moon! :-]
And so it Logically Follows – since rhutchin embraces compatiblilistic free-will choices – he believes Calvin’s god determined those Calvinists (i.e. the LARGE MIXTURE) to have that false perception.”
rhutchin
That is what Jesus said – “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” – isn’t it?
br.d
If you want to lower scripture to that level – that’s your business – but I certainly won’t do that to scripture.
So the bottom line for rhutchin is that he has no idea after he asks for wisdom whether or not Calvin’s god is going to give him FALSE perceptions. ”
rhutchin
I have the assurance and conviction that God gives His wisdom to those who ask for wisdom. No false perceptions there.
br.d
Of course you’re going to PERCEIVE it as not false – just like the other Calvinists do.
Because Calvin’s god determines your PERCEPTIONS the same he determines those other Calvinists PERCEPTIONS.
They have no way of being able to ascertain whether or not the PERCEPTION Calvin’s god has given them is TRUE or FALSE because the ability to make a Libertarian free choice between TRUE vs FALSE doesn’t exist for them – and it doesn’t exist for you either.
As William Lane Craig puts it:
-quote
Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.
And Calvinist Gregory Koukl agrees:
-quote
The problem with determinism, …..One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so. Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know if it – if it were. Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
Great quotes, thanks for providing.
br.d writes, “As a Calvinist you hold the Libertarian Free will does not exist at all for the creature.
Only Compatibilistic free-will exists for you.”
Without faith, compatibilism describes people/s ability to choose – the sin nature rules one’s desires and one’s desires rule one’s choices and a person always chooses to sin. With faith, a person has a semblance of LFW is that the person is now able to choose to not sin. Without faith, it is impossible to please God; with faith, it is possible to please God.
Then, “But in compatiblist free-will choices – Calvin’s god determines what the person’s perceptions will be –”
This by means of the sin nature.
Then, “So the bottom line for rhutchin is that he has no idea after he asks for wisdom whether or not Calvin’s god is going to give him FALSE perceptions. ”
The wisdom God gives me is derived from the Scriptures, so I know that God gives me true wisdom.
Then, quoting Craig, “The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe.”
Under UCD, Craig is correct – only outside factors cause one’s decisions. Under Theological Determinism, internal factors (e.g., the sin nature) enter into the decision process and is the cause for one’s choices, able yo override outside factors.
Then quoting Koukl, “Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. ”
Yep. Everyone is born with a sin nature and without faith (not to mention, country, culture, mental abilities, education, etc.) – all of which are outside the person’s control. Koukl must know this, so what does he mean when he then says, “Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.” Arguments for determinism argue for determinism – why is that self-defeating??? Apparently, you don’t have a clue what Koukl means.
br.d
As a Calvinist you hold the Libertarian Free will does not exist at all for the creature.
Only Compatibilistic free-will exists for you.”
rhutchin
Without faith, compatibilism describes people/s ability to choose –
br.d
FALSE
I already provided the text-book and the “Theopedia” definition of compatiblism.
Faith is red-herring
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) one has faith in [X] (IF AND ONLY IF) Calvin’s god determined them to have faith in [X]
rhutchin
the sin nature rules one’s desires and one’s desires rule one’s choices and a person always chooses to sin. …etc
br.d
This is just a childish attempt at one evading following his systems CAUSAL CHAIN back to its SOURCE/ORIGIN.
An attribute of the creature CAUSED an attribute of the creature – CAUSED an attribute of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
In compatiblist free-will choices – Calvin’s god determines what the person’s perceptions will be –”
rhutchin
This by means of the sin nature.
br.d
Calvin’s god can use any secondary means he wants – but in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) every micro-part of every means itself is AUTHORED by Calvin’s god.
Therefore in Theological Determinism Calvin’s god determines every specific micro-part of every human perception.
So the bottom line for rhutchin is that he has no idea after he asks for wisdom whether or not Calvin’s god is going to give him FALSE perceptions. ”
rhutchin
The wisdom God gives me is derived from the Scriptures, so I know that God gives me true wisdom.
br.d
And the Catholic and the Seventh Day Adventist and the Jehovah’s Witness have the exact same PERCEPTION that you have.
In Theological Determinism:
– the Catholic’s PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
– The Seventh Day Adventist PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
– the Jehovah’s Witness PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
– And your PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
And none of you have the ability to determine whether or not your PERCEPTION is TRUE or FALSE – because your PERCEPTION is determined by factors outside your control.
As William Lane Craig notes:
-quote
The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe.”
rhutchin
Under UCD, Craig is correct – only outside factors cause one’s decisions. Under Theological Determinism, internal factors (e.g., the sin nature) enter into the decision process and is the cause for one’s choices, able yo override outside factors.
br.d
FALSE
In both Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism – determining factors are OUTSIDE of you control being determined by Calvin’s god – whether or not those factors are “internal” or “external” to you is the same in both cases.
That is what *UNIVERSAL* means in Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Also as Calvinist Greg Koukl agrees:
Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. ”
rhutchin
Yep. Everyone is born with a sin nature …..etc
br.d
Again with the evasive maneuver:
An attribute of the creature CAUSED an attribute of the creature – CAUSED an attribute of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
Too funny!
rhutchin
Koukl ….so what does he mean when he then says, “Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.” Arguments for determinism argue for determinism – why is that self-defeating??? Apparently, you don’t have a clue what Koukl means.
br.d
rhutchin – If you don’t have the intelligence to connect those dots your opinions and claims on this topic are superfluous.
If you want to chase your tail – and go around in circles – you can do that without my help.
Hey BR.D — I know this stuff must be tedious for you, as you pick RH arguments apart piece by piece BUT it is helpful to the rest of us. Do not get tired of doing this…it is educational for all.
I believe your goal of educating people is being accomplished…many are being enlightened. Thanks GA
Thanks GraceAdict!
Very much appreciated!
I think the Lord has put rhutchin (an other Calvinists) here to show us how IRRATIONAL and DOUBLE-MINDED Calvinism really is.
So I consider rhutchins posts as an opportunity for that to happen.
Everything worked out for the good :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god can use any secondary means he wants –”
Good concession.
Then, “in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) every micro-part of every means itself is AUTHORED by Calvin’s god.”
Recognizing the use of secondary means in doing this. Here, we have the examples of Joseph and his brothers, the crucifixion of Christ, Judas’ betrayal of Christ, the Assyrians of Isaiah 10.
God is the author of all things, – per Ephesians, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” – and God uses secondary means – sinful people – to bring about those things.
Then, “In both Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism – determining factors are OUTSIDE of you control being determined by Calvin’s god – whether or not those factors are “internal” or “external” to you is the same in both cases.”
Theological Determinism says that internal factors – i.e., the sin nature – are a factor in what happens.
br.d
in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) every micro-part of every means itself is AUTHORED by Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
Recognizing the use of secondary means in doing this. Here, we have the examples of Joseph and his brothers, the crucifixion of Christ, Judas’ betrayal of Christ, the Assyrians of Isaiah 10.
br.d
Well the Calvinist wants to think that of-course – but I never make the silly mistake of conflating scripture with Calvinism – as it contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.
rhutchin
God is the author of all things, – per Ephesians, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” – and God uses secondary means – sinful people – to bring about those things.
br.d
Same answer as above
Of course in both Theological Determinism and Natural Determinism – determining factors are OUTSIDE of your control being determined by Calvin’s god – whether or not those factors are “internal” or “external” to you – that fact is the same in both cases.”
rhutchin
Theological Determinism says tat internal factors – i.e., the sin nature – are a factor in what happens.
br.d
Just like the Natural Determinist will say that “human error” is an “internal” factor in what happens.
Those who are intellectual honest – and LOGICALLY consistent – acknowledge that in Determinism – every factor is determined by factors OUTSIDE of one’s control – which obviously means “internal” factors are also.
The Theological Determinist (as a Determinist) is in the exact same boat – he just has a different label for “human error”.
Rhutchin throws out: ‘God is the author of all things, – per Ephesians, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” – and God uses secondary means – sinful people – to bring about those things’ as if there are things outside of God’s predetermination which he could then harness and use as he wishes.
While this is true under LFW, in which men make free, uncontrolled choices, this can in no way take place under deterministic Calvinism. There are no such things as ‘secondary means’ which come into existence apart from Calvi-god’s decree. All ‘means’ were not only spoken into existence by Calvi-god, but their every thought, word and deed have been carefully chosen and preprogrammed.
If one wants to call that ‘using secondary means’, one should be clear exactly what it means. It cannot mean, under Calvinism, that these secondary means are the causative source of their own actions apart from Calvi-god, which is the imagery Calvinism so often attempts to falsely portray by the use of the term ‘secondary means’.
It matters not one whit whether God comes down and holds a gun to men’s heads, programs them like a computer, or miraculously uses a multitude of means, Calvinists must always affirm that whatsoever comes to pass, regarding any man or means, was originated, ordained, dreamed up, decreed, determined – and any other words one would like to insert – and will irresistibly, inescapably, without fail – and any other words one would like to insert – come to pass exactly as God chose before men were created.
There are no ‘secondary means’ men, dreaming up their own ideas through their independent choices sinful nature, desires – and any other words one would like to insert – that arose apart from God’s decree and direction. It is silly to discuss ‘secondary means’ under Calvinistic determinism, as all that comes to pass since the initial God-breathed creation are such secondary means. It is, (if you’ve ever heard of such a thing), meaningless doublespeak. 😉
Whatsoever comes to pass – sinful or not – was ordained, designed, decreed, determined and brought to pass by Calvi-god. Anything that insinuates otherwise is simply smoke and deception.
Wonderful post TS00!
This affirms for me the fact that Calvinists have a love-hate relationship with their own doctrine.
And that serves as a RED-FLAG that something is wrong with it.
br.d writes, “Those who are intellectual honesty – and is LOGICALLY consistent – acknowledge that in Determinism – every factor is determined by factors OUTSIDE of one’s control – which obviously means “internal” factors are also.”
And God determines all outside and inside factors by creating the system in the first place. God having infinite understanding was able to know all these interactions even before He created the universe. br.d is not denying any of this but affirming the determinism that logically arises from God creating the universe.
br.d
Those who are intellectual honesty – and is LOGICALLY consistent – acknowledge that in Determinism – every factor is determined by factors OUTSIDE of one’s control – which obviously means “internal” factors are also.”
rhutchin
And God determines all outside and inside factors by creating the system in the first place.
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god creates the creature and then “merely” permits the creature to be/do whatever the creature will be/do :-]
John Calvin:
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He *INSPIRES*. – (A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
That’s why its called *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism :-]
rhutchin
God having infinite understanding was able to know all these interactions even before He created the universe.
br.d
*AS-IF* that infinite understanding didn’t include the knowledge that he AUTHORS/CAUSES every neurological impulse that will appear in their brains :-]
rhutchin
br.d is not denying any of this but affirming the determinism that logically arises from God creating the universe.
br.d
You can craft all of the TRUTH-HIDING statements you want – but don’t attribute those statements to others.
I asked Rhutchin if he’s ever given God expressed permission in prayer to tell him if his theology is wrong.
He answered: “I think it obvious that if I am asking God for wisdom, then He gives me His wisdom…In asking for wisdom, I am asking for reproof and correction (among other things). So, when you ask, “I asked if you’ve prayed and asked God to correct you if you’re wrong,” it seems to me that asking for wisdom is understood to include that.”
So that’s a “no” then!
I knew you’d answer that way. (You know what happens when we assume things, right?)
Do you think you are incapable of being led astray just because you ask for wisdom? Do you think our prayers for wisdom somehow prevent Satan from dangling lies-disguised-as-truth in front of us, or prevent us from biting onto one of his hooks? Do you not think the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law asked for wisdom and sought wisdom too? And yet how far from the truth did they end up, blinded by their own wisdom, to the point that they couldn’t even see the Truth when He was standing right in front of them? Are you that much better/smarter/holier than them, that you could never be deceived like they were?
And if you are so sure that the wisdom you have is from God, then you should have no problem sincerely praying this. And I stress “sincerely”! But it seems to me though that you are afraid to pray this, resistant to pray it, and that’s why you keep coming up with “This is why I don’t have to pray it” excuses. And that’s your choice, I guess. To your own detriment. I will still be praying for you.
Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.”
And on a different note, I made a comment earlier about “so much for eternal security” when it came to Rhutchin’s view that the elect are born as reprobates. But I want to make it clear to all here that I am not questioning eternal security itself. I absolutely believe in the eternal security of true Spirit-filled believers, just not in the way that Calvinists believe it: https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/05/can-you-lose-your-salvation.html
Just needed to clarify that.
heather writes, “So that’s a “no” then! ”
That’s a joke – Right!!! Let me repeat, “I think it obvious that if I am asking God for wisdom, then He gives me His wisdom…”
Then, “Do you think you are incapable of being led astray just because you ask for wisdom?”
When we ask God for wisdom, God gives us wisdom. That is His promise and God cannot, and does not, lie.
Then, “Do you not think the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law asked for wisdom and sought wisdom too? ”
Apparently not, as Jesus said, “the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”
Then, “I absolutely believe in the eternal security of true Spirit-filled believers, just not in the way that Calvinists believe it”
Calvinists believe it because God said it through Paul, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
Good points, Br.d., about how Calvi-god gives false perceptions to people, so a Calvinist can never know if he has true or false views. They can’t even know if they’ve been given real saving faith or if they’ve been given evanescent grace.
From Calvin’s Institutes, as we’ve seen before:
“I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.”
Thanks Heather!
In examining Calvin’s quote here – it gets pretty obvious his mind is trying to escape the reality of his own doctrine.
-quote
– faith is *ATTRIBUTED* to the reprobate
br.d
By whom? AH! By yourself and every other Calvinist.
-quote
– though none are enlightened into faith, and truly *FEEL* the efficacy of the Gospel
br.d
Calvin is BLUFFING here.
In his doctrine election is a divine SECRET – which means Calvin doesn’t know who is elect and who isn’t.
So he has absolutely no way of comparing the FEELINGS of the elect to the reprobate.
And even if he did Calvin’s god determines what Calvin’s PERCEPTION will be – not Calvin.
And Calvin’s god could easily make Calvin believe his PERCEPTION is TRUE when it is in fact FALSE
Bottom line – Calvin is just as spiritually BLIND here as any other Calvinist.
So what he does is FABRICATES a PRETENSE of speaking with authority he actually doesn’t have.
-quote
experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes *AFFECTED* in a way so similar to the elect, that even in *THEIR* own judgment there is no difference between them.
br.d
Who is Calvin kidding here!
He is just as SPIRITUALLY BLIND as the rest of the Calvinists.
But notice he won’t acknowledge that – but instead points to *THEIR* judgement as being FALSE – while his is equally the same.
-quote
Not that they *TRULY PERCEIVE* the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith…..but the Lord *INSTILLS* into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.
br.d
What a BLUFFING artist!
Calvin has no availability to empirical evidence to make such statements – at this point he’s simply MAKING STUFF UP.
heather writes, “Calvi-god gives false perceptions to people, so a Calvinist can never know if he has true or false views. They can’t even know if they’ve been given real saving faith or if they’ve been given evanescent grace.”
God does give false perceptions to the unsaved, as the Scriptures tell us, “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan…with all unrighteous deception among those who perish,…or this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” God also gives Satan rule over the unsaved, “…if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…”
rhutchin
heather writes, “Calvi-god gives false perceptions to people, so a Calvinist can never know if he has true or false views. They can’t even know if they’ve been given real saving faith or if they’ve been given evanescent grace.”
God does give false perceptions to the unsaved, as the Scriptures tell us
br.d
rhutchin – you don’t even bother to think things through.
The only way you don’t have FALSE perceptions is if you have reached perfection and are sinless.
If your perception that you don’t have FALSE perceptions then that is a FALSE perception.
If you acknowledge that you have FALSE perceptions – and if you can think logically – then you acknowledge (as a Theological Determinist aka Calvinist) that Calvin’s god determined each and every SPECIFIC FALSE perception you and you alone have.
But from empirical evidence – I fully expect the Calvinist to think IRRATIONALLY for obvious reasons.
br.d writes, “The only way you don’t have FALSE perceptions is if you have reached perfection and are sinless.”
Agreed. Only God is free of false perceptions. However, as Paul instructs, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, ” we can remove false perceptions.
Then, “If you acknowledge that you have FALSE perceptions – and if you can think logically – then you acknowledge (as a Theological Determinist aka Calvinist) that Calvin’s god determined each and every SPECIFIC FALSE perception you and you alone have.”
God made people imperfect, and people’s imperfection produces false perceptions.
Nothing you say is unique to Calvinism. Everyone agrees that God made people imperfect – i.e., not God.
br.d
The only way you don’t have FALSE perceptions is if you have reached perfection and are sinless.”
rhutchin
Agreed. Only God is free of false perceptions. However, as Paul instructs, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, ” we can remove false perceptions.
br.d
*AS-IF* the following isn’t TRUE:
– The Catholic’s PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
– The Seventh Day Adventist’s PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
– The Jehovah’s Witness PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
– And your PERCEPTION of TRUTH from scripture is determined by Calvin’s god
And none of you have the ability to determine whether or not your PERCEPTION is TRUE or FALSE – because your PERCEPTION is determined by factors outside your control.
Therefore if you acknowledge that you have FALSE perceptions – and if you can think logically – then you acknowledge (as a Theological Determinist aka Calvinist) that Calvin’s god determined each and every SPECIFIC FALSE perception you and you alone have.
rhutchin
God made people imperfect, and people’s imperfection produces false perceptions.
br.d
Gota love Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking
Always trying to escape the *UNIVERSAL* in Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t determine every micro-part of every perception.
You’re simply following Calvin’s instructions – going about your office *AS-IF* none of your perceptions are determined in any part. :-]
rhutchin
Nothing you say is unique to Calvinism. Everyone agrees that God made people imperfect – i.e., not God.
br.d
Looks like your mind is blocked from realizing that your every perception is determined by an external mind – and not your mind.
It LOGICALLY follows Calvin’s god is controlling your perception so that you can’t see it.
BTW: If you don’t understand what William Lane Craig and Calvinist Gregory Koukl mean when they both acknowledge arguing for determinism is self-defeating – why don’t you ask Calvin’s god for wisdom and see if he changes your perception.
But of course you can’t even perceive doing that unless Calvin’s god determines it – so I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Therefore If you acknowledge that you have FALSE perceptions – and if you can think logically – then you acknowledge (as a Theological Determinist aka Calvinist) that Calvin’s god determined each and every SPECIFIC FALSE perception you and you alone have.””
False perceptions arise from the sin nature. God overrides false perceptions through the truth He gives us in the Scriptures. For example, we read, “All that God gives to Jesus will come to Jesus,” and we know that that is truth. To that we add more and more truth from the Scripture and continue to replace the false perceptions derived from our sin nature with truth.
br.d
Therefore If you acknowledge that you have FALSE perceptions – and if you can think logically – then you acknowledge (as a Theological Determinist aka Calvinist) that Calvin’s god determined each and every SPECIFIC FALSE perception you and you alone have.””
rhutchin
False perceptions arise from the sin nature.
br.d
Here we go again with – Some aspect of the creature Caused some aspect of the creature – caused some aspect of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t micro-control every micro-part of every sin nature :-]
John Calvin
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires. – A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190
rhutchin
God overrides false perceptions through the truth He gives us in the Scriptures.
br.d
*AS-IF* you can make a Libertarian decision between one perception and another :-]
Nothing can come to pass – including a false perception of scripture – without Calvin’s god RENDERING-IT-CERTAIN.
It LOGICALLY follows – if Calvin’s god “overrides” a given perception of scripture – then he is simply “overriding’ that perception with another one.
In any case – your still in the same boat with the Catholic, the Seventh Day Adventist, the Jehovah’s witness – in terms of not having the ability to rationally affirm your perception as TRUE or FALSE – since your perception is determined by Calvin’s god the same exact way he determines the Catholic’s, the Seventh Day Adventist, and the Jehovah’s witness perception of scripture.
So all of the tail-chasing trying to escape that TRUTH profits nothing.
br.d writes, “Here we go again with – Some aspect of the creature Caused some aspect of the creature – caused some aspect of the creature – and on into infinite regress.”
The origin of the sin nature is Adam’s sin and the penalty for that sin enforced by God. As God determines the conception and birth of each individual, He enforces the decree that all people are born with a sin nature and without faith. Even br.d does not argue against this.
br.d
“Here we go again with – Some aspect of the creature caused some aspect of the creature – caused some aspect of the creature – and on into infinite regress.”
rhutchin
The origin of the sin nature is Adam’s sin…..etc.
br.d
Since you’re chasing your tail here going in circles – I’ll just stand back and watch :-]
Interesting thing about Calvinists, is they claim to be ok with contradiction, normally appealing to mystery when they don’t understand a contradiction, yet they DO NOT REALIZE that they themselves affirm to the law of non-contradiction in a primary doctrine of their theology.
I have seen many calvinists completely and adamantly deny the Biblical concept of man’ freewill (the word is used 17 times in the Bible in 16 verses). Why? Because they place (their definition) of God’s Sovereignty above all else. Since free-will completely contradicts this definition, they realize the violation of the law of non-contradiction and having to decide one or the other is wrong to then be in line with that law, decide to attack free-will. Something has to give, after all.
This, in turn, creates all sorts of moral implications and problems, which is why they come up with compatibilism, secret will, all that nonsense. But where does the problem lay?
They pigeon holed themselves into a false dichotomy of freewill, OR sovereignty! It is only THEIR definition of sovereignty that creates this dichotomy. By simply changing the definition of sovereignty to its ACTUAL definition of the highest authority, nothing above, alone in its power, answers to no higher authority, the contradiction of freewill and God’s sovereignty completely dissipates! The two concepts actually become compatible and there is no contradiction. The entire theology of Calvinism is built around a changed definition of a single word. It is astounding. Take that away, and there is no need for any of the other complex theological acrobatics involved in Calvinism!
Side note, while the Bible does in fact use the word Freewill 17 times, NOT ONCE (KJV, best English translation in my opinion, but different story), NOT ONCE is the word sovereign or sovereignty used. Now, I do believe God is sovereign, by the actual dictionary definition, but apparently the Bible doesn’t put as much emphasis on it as important as Calvinist do, and it could be argued that because freewill IS used, it places more importance on that concept. Food for thought.
Welcome A2A! Those are some good observations.
Hello Atheist2Apologist and welcome
There is in fact a doctrine of free-will in Calvinism.
But it is not the free-will which NORMAL people understand.
Calvinism’s foundational core – is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM – as enunciated by Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly
decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Creaturely Freedom in Calvinism can be explained as follows:
1) Nothing can happen or exist – unless it is knowingly and willingly decreed.
2) All decreed events require some NECESSARY CONDITIONS
3) For example – if it is decreed that I drive a blue pickup truck – then the existence of a blue pickup truck is a NECESSARY CONDITION for the success of that decree.
4) Freedom and Permission are also NECESSARY CONDITIONS.
For example – if it is decreed that I will infallibly do [X]
Then I must be granted sufficient Freedom and sufficient Permission to do [X]
So in Calvinism – there is Freedom for the Creature.
But that Freedom is limited to only that which is NECESSARY to fulfill the infallible decree
However – there is NO FREEDOM and NO PERMISSION granted to creation or the creature – to countervail – or falsify an infallible decree.
Thus – with Adam in the garden it follows:
1) Adam was granted Freedom to eat the fruit – because eating the fruit was infallibly decreed – and Freedom to eat the fruit was thus a NECESSARY CONDITION for the success of that decree.
2) Adam was NOT FREE to NOT eat the fruit – because NOT eating the fruit would countervail and falsify the infallible decree – and NO FREEDOM or PERMISSION is granted to the creature to countervail or falsify an infallible decree.
This is why Dr. Kenneth M Wilson in his research on Augustine (the father of Calvinism) defines Calvinism’s version of Free-will as:
NON-FREE FREEDOM
Blessings!
Non Free Freedom is literally a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. A cannot be A and Non-A at the same time. One cannot be free and not free at the same time. It is complete nonsense.
Thanks A2A!
Keep talking!
Thank you, FOH. Abridged version…as you may have guessed, I was an atheist most of my life. More detail some other time, but the problem I have with Calvinism is that I was rejecting the One True God, but it was because I thought God WAS ACTUALLY the God of Calvinism. I found a God who created things knowing that they would suffer for all eternity to be cruel and repugnant. Being unable to reconcile this, I rejected the actual God, Whom I now know, love and understand! Praise the Lord! Calvinistic theology literally kept me from getting saved for all those years, so I find it especially abhorrent.
Additionally, I have seen testimony of people LEAVING THEIR FAITH, becoming atheists BECAUSE OF Calvinistic doctrine (specifically creating people for the purpose of destroying them). Not due to some tragedy, or some other thing happening, but leaving it DUE TO what they believed about God through Calvinism. I’ve never heard of anyone leaving their faith BECAUSE they believed they had freewill. How can a doctrine that actually CREATES APOSTASY of its own accord be a theology that is true and from God? You can tell them by their fruit.
You are welcome here!
No doubt there are some who thought they had free will and left the faith, but all here will agree with you on how abhorrent the “created specifically to destroy them” idea is. Yum!
You (well, Calvinists) have to ask what the point is of anything if we are either created for His delightful pleasure in tormenting us, or created to be “forced” (irresistible is forced) to love Him.
Atheist2Apologist
Non Free Freedom is literally a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction
br.d
Dr, Wilson is using that term – not to describe contradiction – but to identify where Freedom exists and where Freedom does not exist.
And if you review the logic behind it which I described – you can see there is no contradiction.
There is Freedom – but that Freedom is limited ONLY to that which is infallibly decreed
There is NO Freedom Otherwise.
So when a Calvinist declares there is “Free-Will” within his belief system – he is being strategically misleading.
He will use the phrase “Free-Will” because he knows the way NORMAL people will interpret it.
This is often called INSIDER language.
The Calvinist knows that Calvinism has an INSIDER definition for the phrase “Free-Will” which the OUTSIDER is unaware of.
The Calvinist will use the phrase “Free-Will” in order to present a FALSE PICTURE of the kind of “Free-Will” the OUTSIDER understands.
The Calvinist is not concerned that he is using language designed to mislead people.
He only cares about making Calvinism APPEAR ACCEPTABLE to people.
He knows – if he tells people – what his INSIDER definition for creaturely freedom is – they will reject Calvinism.
So he uses misleading language in order to paint a picture wants people to see – even though it is a FALSE picture.
This is why Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language
Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language
I’ve noticed the sneakiness. It’s the subtlety that makes Calvinism SO dangerous. In fact, I can listen to a Calvinist preacher and agree with about 95% if what they say, and even learn from the sermon. But WITHOUT FAIL, they somehow have to throw in their doctrine into the message they preach. Something interesting though, much like how Atheists have to borrow or step one foot in our world view to make sense of their view, so Calvinists do the same with Non-Calvinist views. I will hear messages in their own preaching that is completely against their views, yet they affirm them in that moment. This is similar to double-speak but different in that it is not intentional. The truth wants SO BADLY to come out, it will slip through the cracks in the wall of self delusion the Calvinist has weaved to make sense out of nonsense.
Atheist2Apologist: I’ve noticed the sneakiness.
br.d
Yes – well – there are about 3 reasons for that.
1) There is the issue of the COMMON definitions for words – and how it doesn’t work for the Calvinist – because the Calvinist is a Determinist.
There is an interesting Joe Rogan show on the topic of Free-Will – where he is intervening a nationally recognized Theoretical Physicist – Sean Carroll
Sean Carroll is an Atheist Determinist .
But the phenomenon of language is consistent for both Atheist Determinists and Theological Determinists (aka Calvinists)
During that interview on Free-Will – from a Determinist’s point of view – Sean Carroll made this statement:
There are 2 questions.
The first question is “How does the world work [in the mind of a Determinist]”
The second question is – “What meanings do we [Determinists] ATTACH to words – in order to describe how our world works”.
Notice how Sean indicates – the Determinist has to ATTACH meanings to words.
This is because – the preponderance of the human population do not have a Determinist world-view.
Determinism – is the thesis that whatsoever comes to pass – is caused by antecedent factors outside of human control.
Children in the world are not raised up being taught that every impulse which comes to pass within their brains are determined by antecedent factors outside of their brains control.
Consequently – the worlds that evolve within human languages are not designed to describe a Deterministic world.
So the Determinist has to use words that are already in the COMMON vernacular – and he has to ATTACH meanings to those words – in order to make them work within his world view.
This is evidenced in John Calvin’s explanation of the Calvinist use of the word “Permission”.
The STANDARD definition of the word “Permission” is “To let go”, “To let pass”, “To give up”. etc.
It is a word which infers acquiescence
Well – for Calvin – this cannot possibly work within his Deterministic world – because it would represent a compromise in divine sovereignty.
Calvin rejects the idea of his god being what he called “a passive on-looker”.
So what Augustine and Calvin do – is ATTACH a different meaning to the word “Permission”
John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he ATTACHES to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
So in Calvinism – the word “Permission” when it refers to Calvin’s god – is used as a replacement word for CAUSE.
So when John Piper says “We don’t know why god permits sins and evils”
What he is really saying is “We don’t know why god CAUSES sins and evils”.
He is using the word “Permission” – with an INSIDER meaning – which NON-Calvinists are not going to understand.
And that is one of the reasons – why Calvinist language is a misleading language
Leighton
If someone is born with a mental disorder which prevented them from carrying out normal human functions…I think we all intuitively know that it would also be completely immoral to condemn the mentally disabled for their inability to function normally.
br.d
Personally – I wouldn’t automatically assume this for a *CONSISTENT* Calvinist.
Calvin’s god makes the rules for the creature – and he remains remiss from complying to those rules himself.
As Jesus related concerning the Pharisees:
“Do what they say – but not what they do -for they do not do what they say”.
This is actually the *CONSISTENT* conception of Calvin’s god – who specifically designs each vessel for a given purpose.
You’ve heard of “designer” jeans?
Calvin’s god creates each individual as a “designer” person
Who is born to commit “designer” sins.
So that Calvin’s god can condemn these individuals to eternal torments which he designed.
And Calvin’s god cannot be held accountable or conformable to any humanly known system of ethics.
So yes – that Calvin’s god creates “designer” persons with mental disorders – specifically so that he can condemn them – is perfectly *CONSISTENT*
Now in regard to Calvinists acknowledging this:
Calvinists are ultimately highly calculating pragmatic utilitarians in nature.
Everything they acknowledge or not is ultimately dependent upon whether or not doing so benefits or hurts the future of the doctrine.
And Calvinists leaders are not going to allow the doctrine to which they are so heavily invested – go the way of the dinosaur
So how a Calvinist responds to the *CONSISTENT* conception of Calvin’s god – simply reflects the current psychology of each individual Calvinist – as well as the current popularity (or unpopularity) of Calvinism as a whole.
Calvinist leadership will acknowledge and promote *CONSISTENT* Calvinism if doing so makes the doctrine more popular.
As we normally see on other related issues – they will typically otherwise deny, mislead, equivocate, and evade.
All for the sake of the doctrine.
That’s just the nature of the beast.
1
Leighton,
Dont forget that Calvinists declare that not only does God judge a person for things done beyond their control…. but He makes the judgement eternal, conscious torment. I would consider that a miscarriage of justice in any other scenario
Dr. Flowers
You had an interaction with James White on youtube – in which you (using consistent logic) responded to an accusation – by pointing out that the Calvinist in accusing you of doing something wrong is quite literally complaining about what Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN you do. And did so at the foundation of the world before you existed. So you had no say in the matter. And thus what he complains about was determined by factors beyond human control. In effect – Whites accusation amounts to complaining about god’s will.
When you pointed this out – White’s response was to get demanding and posturing a parent-child relationship. As if he were playing the role of a parent scolding the child and telling him to STOP IT. His reason for this demand was to appeal to the “so called” PRESCRIPTIVE will of god.
When one thinks this through logically what one finds concerning Whites argument – he is arguing that god requires people to communicate AS-FALSE what they inwardly know to be TRUE. In other words the PRESCRIPTIVE will requires a certain degree of dishonest testimony from the Calvinist.
Jesus teaches: “But let your communication be yea yea – or nay nay – for anything else comes of evil”
So obviously – to obey the “so called” PRESCRIPTIVE will – forces the Calvinist to disobey Jesus’ command.
Being caught between two masters – he must cleave to one and compromise the other.
I just posted this on another thread, but thought it applied here:
Calvinism, sadly, portrays God as an angry, bloodthirsty monster who demands a blood sacrifice to slate his furious anger at sinful man. This ‘angry God’ image has been cleverly used to manipulate and control the masses through fear by the institutional church through the ages. I view it as an utterly false, man-made image in marked contrast to the genuine revelation of God, through Jesus, as a loving, gracious, merciful Father, abounding in goodness, patience, and longsuffering love.
We will not arrive at a true picture of God and salvation until we cast off the old traditions of men, and begin to see God as Jesus presented him. Calvinism and all of its curses, wrath and blood sacrifices remains forever locked into the ancient pagan perspective which Jesus came to overthrow.
Rather than being born under the curse of an angry God, who is only driven by a narcissistic desire for glory to spare a select few from his fierce wrath, scripture weaves the story of men being repeatedly seduced and deceived by empty promises and lies by the masterful deceiver. Man’s only hope is to trust in God and his ways, to forgo his self love and learn to live in humble service to God and others. Contrary to Calvinism’s ugly penal substitution or the similar divine satisfaction theories of atonement, I believe that Christ came to conquer sin and death, not to abate God’s wrath.
I’m still in the process of throwing off the old programming, but I no longer buy the wrath, anger and fear that orthodox christianity has so long traded in. I no longer fear their bogey man god, but believe him to be a mythological creature crafted from twisted scriptures. If one could strip off the preening masks of haughty Calvinists, and get his view of god in street vernacular, I imagine it would sound something like this:
“So you think God is a Mr. Nice Guy, eh, a real Mr. Rogers? Some lilly-livered coward, who comes crawling to men and begs them to love him, and cries when they say ‘no’. Well you don’t know nothing about the sovereign, omnipotent ruler of the universe. God is fierce and all-powerful, and your childish little songs will not stop him from chewing you up and spewing you out of his mouth. Even now, he holds you over the fiery pit, ready to drop you in, and you deserve it. He could destroy this planet with one blow of his fist, and he doesn’t have to answer to you or anyone. Unless he elected you, draws you and regenerates you, you are doomed, and ain’t nobody going to rescue you with their goody two shoes ‘God so loved the world’. He’ll love whoever he wants to love, and cast the rest into the pit of hell where they belong.”
But of course, it sounds so much better couched in pious, grandiose terms.
Dr Flowers I’m certainly glad (they) haven’t decided the reprobate are those with blue eyes considering that is my eye color😁 this article makes sense and I know personally that it would have helped me at a certain point in my life. I know there are people out there surrounded by this aggressive systematic that need these very words to remind them they’re not alone. It clearly gives pause to the very fact that we are all created in His image!!! I’m sure it isn’t always easy going up against such an imposing opposition who don’t seem to even care if they serve a just God while maintaining it’s for His glory that they hold fast. I did have my sister (who is a calvinist) tell me about 2 1/2 years ago that God loves the mentally handicap.. sounded good, but since that time I’ve wondered why she can stop there with His provision and love instead of it being for all people🤔
I agree with the verses you’ve given and love this statement you wrote;
(According to the verses above it seems those who are condemned are condemned for refusing to believe and accept the truth God makes clearly known. And those who are saved are reconciled by (relying) in faith to God’s appeals for reconciliation.)
It is clear that this is a God who not only is just, but perfect in love! We are all without excuse thanks be to God for the perfect sacrifice His One and only Son Jesus Christ to Him all honor and glory forever and ever!!! Thank you for what you are doing..
Reggie writes:
“It is clear that this is a God who not only is just, but perfect in love! We are all without excuse thanks be to God for the perfect sacrifice His One and only Son Jesus Christ to Him all honor and glory forever and ever!!!”
Amen! How overjoyed I was to trade in my cruel, determinist god and restore my faith in the real thing – a God who loves all men, and neither decrees nor rejoices in evil. The apparent meaning of scripture is true – God loves and calls to all men to turn from rebellion, self-serving and wickedness and follow him! So glad you have discovered this too.
Thanks Leighton for all your work in these issues. I do sense that we are getting some traction in the tug of war over the nature of grace.
Enjoying the new book. Hope we can meet up again sometime.
Doug S
TSOO I too am glad we both have & thank you!!
Nice post Reggie!
It is so encouraging to know there are like minded believers out there and I appreciate that BR.D
“To my Calvinistic friends: before objecting please give a rational explanation as to how the reprobate (non-elect) within your world view are not ultimately being condemned for reasons beyond their control, or admit that is true and give a rational explanation as to how and why that is any more just than condemning people due to race or mental disabilities.”
If a person is born without legs, he cannot run. If a person is born without faith, he cannot enter heaven. As it is impossible for a person without legs to run, so it is impossible for a person without faith to enter heaven. Everyone seems to recognize this. Dr. Flowers has mischaracterized the issue.
Dr. Flowers
“To my Calvinistic friends: before objecting *PLEASE* give a *RATIONAL* explanation as to how the reprobate (non-elect) within your world view are not ultimately being condemned for reasons beyond their control,…..”
rhutchin
If a person is born without legs, he cannot run. If a person is born without faith, he cannot enter heaven. As it is impossible for a person without legs to run, so it is impossible for a person without faith to enter heaven.
Everyone seems to recognize this. Dr. Flowers has mischaracterized the issue.
br.d
And that is supposed to be a *RATIONAL* explanation! :-]
So we know Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN persons to be vessels of wrath – born without legs – without faith – etc.
My question:
Why does Calvin’s god RENDER-CERTAIN all Calvinists void of RATIONAL thinking and truth-telling. :-]
Your example doesn’t address the idea of how we get faith. And that makes all the difference. If you say that God has to provide the faith (for the elect), then you are right back to God condemning the unelect for something they had no control over. But the Bible clearly shows that faith comes through hearing the Word and believing. And “believing” in the concordance isn’t about “God caused me to believe.” It’s about allowing yourself to be persuaded by something and, consequently, committing to it and putting your faith in it. It is done by the person, not by God. And “receive” (as in Romans 1:5, 5:11 – receiving grace, reconciliation) is along the same lines. It’s not passive, as though God forces it on you. It’s about taking it, about reaching out and grabbing ahold of what is offered to you.
Hey Heather, so are you saying that whether or not a certain individual has faith is outside the decree of God?
That’s right Heather,
You are right about the “persuade” part, just as Paul addresses.
2 Corinthians 5:11
Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.
[Being persuaded —by Paul — certainly implies the person is involved. You do not persuade a “dead” man….. and the “irresistibly-graced” person would not need any “persuading”!!!]
Acts 9:22
Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.
[Who is Paul “proving” it to? Dead mean? Irresistibly-drawn need no proof.]
1 Cor 9: 19
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
Acts 17:2
As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures
[You cannot reason with “dead” men and irresistibly-grace-elect should not need to be reasoned with. Here again, Paul is claiming that to some degree, his reasoning is making a difference.]
Acts 28:23
When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
[Paul is “trying to convince them” (even the ESV says this!!).]
Acts 28:24
Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.
[Well, there you go….. the Bible clearly says that the words of Paul were what convinced some.]
Acts 18:4
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
[More persuading!!]
Acts 19:8
And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
[Over and over. Persuading and reasoning with. You dont do that with “dead men.” So being “dead” is not what Calvinists say it is.]
FOH writes, “You are right about the “persuade” part, just as Paul addresses.”
And as the Calvinist asks, “Why are not all persuaded?”
Don’t fall for it Heather.
RH has no children I’m guessing.
Some are persuaded to something and others are not. It aint rocket science.
Oh…. and the go-to Romans passage (in context….) is about saying it’s not just about Israel now….. He can open it up to anyone…. He will now have mercy on all who come to Christ (not just historical Israel). That’s not rocket science either but often taken out of context.
rhutchin: “as the Calvinist asks, “Why are not all persuaded?”
FOH: “Some are persuaded to something and others are not. It aint rocket science.”
If not rocket science, why does FOH purposely avoid giving an answer. Maybe, because he knows that God determines why one is persuaded and another is not.
– “…it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”
– “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,…”
– ‘we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,…”
– “God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him….”
– “For whom God foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?”
Heather,
When Calvinists throw up the smoke screen requiring you to somehow tell them why some believe (or are persuaded) and some aren’t…. just go to the Bible.
Joshua (and many others) give us good examples of choices people make…
24:15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
———–
So sometimes…. serving the Lord (or being persuaded, reasoned with, or convinced: all Paul’s words) seems desirable….. but sometime people see it and desire something else.
Funny, for Calvinism to be true Joshua would have said this in way to make that clear:
….But if serving the Lord [is not what God elected you to do], then “choose” [irresistibly] this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates [and God ordained some of you to do that], or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living [and God ordained some of you for that too]. But as for me and my household, we [were elected to] to serve the Lord.”
The Bible is full of examples where God even works with people to bring them along in their choices (not just presto give them faith).
Remember Gideon and the fleeces?
Remember the signs given to doubtful Moses?
Remember Christ did the same ….. He performed many miracles to help people along…… (John 20:31) But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
I love it!
You’re free to choose – ONLY what Calvin’s god pre-determined you to choose.
And don’t be surprised if he condemns you for NOT choosing the very thing he didn’t permit you to choose.
HOTEL CALVIN-FORNIA
You’re free to check-out anytime you like – but you can never leave.
br.d writes, “You’re free to choose – ONLY what Calvin’s god pre-determined you to choose.!’
God predetermined you to choose that which you desired to choose. That which you did choose in the course of time was based on your desires at that time and was made without any prompting from God. So, you were free to choose. That God knew the choice you would make before you made that choice did not affect the freedom of your choice as William Craig has shown.
br.d
In Calvinism you’re free to choose – ONLY what Calvin’s god pre-determined you to choose.!’
rhutchin
God predetermined you to choose that which you desired to choose.
br.d
You can’t say my statement is FALSE without telling a lie.
Evading the truth with red-herrings is still evading the truth.
rhutchin
That which you did choose in the course of time was based on your desires at that time and was made without any prompting from God.
br.d
FALSE
John Calvin
-qoute
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it
Funny!
I’m 100 times more truth-full about Calvinism than you are rhutchin
And that doesn’t surprise me at all! :-]
br.d writes, “In Calvinism you’re free to choose – ONLY what Calvin’s god pre-determined you to choose.!’
Then, “You can’t say my statement is FALSE without telling a lie.”
Your statement is true but incomplete as I noted, “God predetermined you to choose that which you desired to choose. ” Both statements are correct and consistent.
br.d
In Calvinism you’re free to choose – ONLY what Calvin’s god pre-determined you to choose.!’
Then, “You can’t say my statement is FALSE without telling a lie.”
rhutchin
Your statement is true but incomplete as I noted, “God predetermined you to choose that which you desired to choose. ” Both statements are correct and consistent.
br.d
Except that your statement is strategically worded to be misleading.
The more TRUTH-FULL statement is:
“Calvin’s god predetermined you to choose that which Calvin’s god predetermined you to desire to choose”.
To Funny!
I’m 100 times more truthful about Calvinism than you are rhutchin
And I’m not surprised at all why :-]
br.d writres, “Except that your statement is strategically worded to be misleading.
The more TRUTH-FULL statement is:
“Calvin’s god predetermined you to choose that which Calvin’s god predetermined you to desire to choose”.
If you mean, predetermined through secondary means and not directly by God or through coercion by God, then, Yes – but you haven’t added anything substantive to the conversation. The person still gets what he wants and is happy with his choice no matter what God knows or when He knew it.
br.d
Except that your statement is strategically worded to be misleading.
The more TRUTH-FULL statement is:
“Calvin’s god predetermined you to choose that which Calvin’s god predetermined you to desire to choose”.
rhutchin
If you mean, predetermined through secondary means and not directly by God or through coercion by God, then, Yes
br.d
FALSE
In Calvin’s Theological Determinism – the only one can predetermine/predestine anything is Calvin’s god.
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “merely” permits creaturely attributes (e.g. desires choices)
So once again – I’m 100 times more truthful about Calvinism than you are! :-]
rhutchin
– but you haven’t added anything substantive to the conversation.
br.d
Silly bird!
Since your statement is still strategically misleading – trying to SNEAK in “mere” permission in camouflaged form – your contribution is substantive – in the negative.
rhutchin
The person still gets what he wants and is happy with his choice no matter what God knows or when He knew it.
br.d
And now you’re right back to where I started with this thread
Let [X] = ANY/ALL creaturely attribute (desire/choice/want/happy/sin-nature – anything the Calvinist want’s to point to as a CAUSE)
In Calvinism you are free to [X] ONLY what Calvin’s god pre-determined as your [X].
You have no control or say about what your [X] will be.
And no other [X] is permitted or made available.
rh writes:
“The person still gets what he wants and is happy with his choice no matter what God knows or when He knew it.”
Of course, Calvinism would never allow for God merely foreknowing future events, so someone is once again being disingenuous. Calvinism is similar to Huxley’s Brave New World, in which all men will be brainwashed and sedated so that they will love their helpless servitude. God slips us the unseen desire pill and we ‘happily’ desire whatever he has ordained. Fine I guess, if you don’t mind slavery.
The obvious alternative, which frees one from Calvinism’s unpleasant side effect of making God the author of evil, is that evil exists because God does not exert complete, meticulous control of his creation. It is because man was gifted with freedom that sin occurs, not some dastardly divine decree. This is the option that anyone who truly understands anything about the character of God will always go with.
Right on!
Calvin himself called it the decrees “horrible” – from the Old French – meaning “dreadful” or “terrible”.
TS00 writes, “God slips us the unseen desire pill and we ‘happily’ desire whatever he has ordained.”
No. Those desires arise form the person’s nature in conjunction with his knowledge, experiences, wants, etc. The person does that which he desires. God does not need to slip any desires in; desires arise from within himself.
Then, “The obvious alternative…is that evil exists because God does not exert complete, meticulous control of his creation. It is because man was gifted with freedom that sin occurs, not some dastardly divine decree.”
God can gift man with such freedom even when He exercises complete, meticulous control of his creation. You have not really identified an alternative. All you say is that God, in the exercise of His complete, meticulous control, gifts man with freedom to sin. That is what Calvinism says.
rh writes:
“God can gift man with such freedom even when He exercises complete, meticulous control of his creation. You have not really identified an alternative. All you say is that God, in the exercise of His complete, meticulous control, gifts man with freedom to sin. That is what Calvinism says.”
No, that is not what Calvinism says, or even if Calvinists say those words, they are contrary to the logical outcome of their doctrine. Calvinism does not ‘gift man with freedom to sin’; Calvinism curses man with the inability to not sin. That, my friend is a great big, huge, enormous difference that Calvinists pretend to not see.
A pirate king can say disingenuously to his captive, ‘Would you like to walk the plank now?’ when all present know that the captive has no real choice; he will walk voluntarily, or involuntarily. Calvinists can say ‘man chooses his own desires’ when all who understand Calvinism know that man has no other choice than what has been ordained for him. He will desire what God has ordained him to desire, and nothing else. He will choose God’s ordained plan or he will choose God’s ordained plan.
This shows what a logical conundrum Calvinism creates. For if man cannot do otherwise than he has been pre-ordained to do, there is no possibility of sin. It doesn’t matter if God says ‘Thou shalt not’ if God has ordained that ‘Thou shalt’. Now I guess I see why they must keep up with the pretense. Even the most clever Calvinist can’t get away with eliminating sin and remaining true to scripture.
TS00 writes, “Calvinism does not ‘gift man with freedom to sin’ Calvinism curses man with the inability to not sin.”
When God created Adam, He created Adam with the ability to not sin. Adam chose to sin. That resulted in corruption, so that Adam no longer had the ability to not sin; from that point Adam could only sin. Thereby Adam was cursed with the inability to not sin as were his descendants. Calvinism did not curse people; Adam did and Calvinism points out the significance of Adam’s sin.
Then, “A pirate king can say disingenuously to his captive, ‘Would you like to walk the plank now?’ ”
No, “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,…” so God says to people, you were born to walk the plank unless you avail yourself of Christ. Christ then said, ““No one can come to Me,… and “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,…” Thus, Paul says, “…even when we were dead in our transgressions, God made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),…”
rh writes:
” Calvinism did not curse people; Adam did and Calvinism points out the significance of Adam’s sin.”
Another unbiblical and false assertion. Adam was a mere mortal, and had no power to curse anyone, let alone all humanity. Calvinism claims – and I assert falsely – that God cursed all of humanity in a fit of pique against Adam. They can try to put it on Adam all they like, but he did not possess supernatural power to change the nature of man. Nor would the true God do such a cruel, monstrous thing.
rh writes:
“People are rightly condemned, not necessarily because they sin, but because they are not righteous and they have been pre-ordained to this unrighteousness by Adam’s sin”
Once again, unbiblical and illogical. Nowhere does the bible state that people are preordained to unrighteousness. That is simply a faulty interpretation by Calvinism. Nor need anyone be condemned due to any sin, for Jesus atoned for the sin of all men. The only reason anyone must die is because they deliberately refuse, in spite of all of the evidence he has provided through the ages, to believe that God is good, and the rewarder of those who seek him.
God did not curse men with a sin nature. That is one of the most hideous errors of Calvinism, and what incredible damage thinking such a thing does. Countless people have assumed that they are hopeless and unloved by God. Countless others shrug off their fleshly indulgences as ‘not my fault’ and excuse their unholiness by appealing to that ol’ sin nature God inflicted them with. Tragic.
TS00 writes, “Another unbiblical and false assertion. Adam was a mere mortal, and had no power to curse anyone,…”
The consequence of Adam’s sin – “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Adam ate and incurred spiritual death immediately and physical death eventually. Adam was then kicked out of the garden. His descendants inherited spiritual and physical death from Adam and could not re-enter the garden because of this. By Adam’s sin, his descendants were cursed.
Then, “Nowhere does the bible state that people are preordained to unrighteousness.”
Jesus said, ““That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” All people are born of the flesh – referring to a sinful nature – “the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit,…Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God..” Paul explains further, “those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh,…For the mind set on the flesh is death,…because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
All people are pre-ordained to unrighteousness by birth as a consequence of Adam’s sin and that condition can only be changed by rebirth as Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
br.d
rhutchin – what you’ve posted here is a CAUSE/EFFECT fallacy – POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
Translated as “after this, therefore because of this.”
There are well-known religious superstitions false doctrines based on this fallacy.
If you want to make a LOGICAL case that creatures are “preordained” to unrighteousness – you won’t do it by simply pointing to the STATE of the creature (post effect).
You need a proof-text within scripture that provides an EXPLICIT correlation between CAUSE and EFFECT.
In your case CAUSE will needs to be CLEARLY stated as Calvin’s god’s decree/ordination.
Good luck with that one! :-]
br.d writes, ‘If you want to make a LOGICAL case that creatures are “preordained” to unrighteousness – you won’t do it by simply pointing to the STATE of the creature (post effect). ”
The effects of Adam’s sin define what God meant when He said, “…in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die…” You may define that phrase as you will; the Calvinist has staked out his position. If you can give an alternative position, then we can had that to your earlier claims: (1) take away God’s sovereignty, (2) make man autonomous, and (3) condition God’s knowledge on observation to define the contortions non-Calvinist have to go through to oppose calvinism.
br.d
what you’ve posted here is a CAUSE/EFFECT fallacy – POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC Translated as “after this, therefore because of this.” There are well-known religious superstitions and false doctrines based on this fallacy.
If you want to make a LOGICAL case that creatures are “preordained” to unrighteousness – you won’t do it by simply pointing to the STATE of the creature (post effect). ”
rhutchin
The effects of Adam’s sin define what God meant when He said, “…in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die…” You may define that phrase as you will; the Calvinist has staked out his position.
br.d
its obvious the Calvinist has staked out a position!
And its also obvious – that position is based on the logical fallacy I’ve described.
And your newer quote – concerning what God said – still does not establish a CAUSE and EFFECT relationship which you require.
I would call this position “easy-believe-ism”
And concerning that – in another post you claimed I simply follow whatever someone else says
And I responded – that was an example of “reverse attribution”
Now you’re proving me right again.
Too funny! :-]
rhutchin
If you can give an alternative position…..
br.d
You ask me to provide an alternative to a position to what you’ve derived from a logical fallacy!
The Jehovah’s witness can provide an alternative – based upon the same exact logical fallacy.
And in the end there will be two groups with alternative positions based on the same logical fallacy.
Better for nobody to fall into that ditch!
rhutchin
then we can had that to your earlier claims: (1) take away God’s sovereignty, (2) make man autonomous, and (3) condition God’s knowledge on observation to define the contortions non-Calvinist have to go through to oppose calvinism.
br.d
Please provide the quote where I made these claims.
Otherwise you’ve provided another excellent example of a straw-man :-]
TS00 writes, “This shows what a logical conundrum Calvinism creates. For if man cannot do otherwise than he has been pre-ordained to do, there is no possibility of sin.”
As Paul writes in Romans 2, “you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” People are rightly condemned, not necessarily because they sin, but because they are not righteous and they have been pre-ordained to this unrighteousness by Adam’s sin
rhutchin
No. Those desires arise form the person’s nature in conjunction with his knowledge……
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits them and knows about them via observation. :-]
rhutchin: “No. Those desires arise form the person’s nature in conjunction with his knowledge……
br.d: “*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits them and knows about them via observation.”
No, as-if God decrees them having known them before they were conceived in the person’s mind.
rhutchin
No. Those desires arise form the person’s nature in conjunction with his knowledge……
br.d:
“*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits them and knows about them via observation.
rhutchin
No, as-if God decrees them having known them before they were conceived in the person’s mind.
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god knew them before they were in the person’s mind via observation
br.d writes, “John Calvin
-qoute
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it…”
I found a fuller citation to be, ““But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” It is cited from “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.” However, I have copies of that document and none of my searches turned up this passage. It sounds like something Calvin might write, but I think it has been divorced from context. Did br.d actually read this or was he just quote mining??
Calvin addresses this in his Institutes this way–
“And truly God claims omnipotence to himself, and would have us to acknowledge it, – not the vain, indolent, slumbering omnipotence which sophists feign, but vigilant, efficacious, energetic, and ever active, – not an omnipotence which may only act as a general principle of confused motion, as in ordering a stream to keep within the channel once prescribed to it, but one which is intent on individual and special movements. God is deemed omnipotent, not because he can act though he may cease or be idle, or because by a general instinct he continues the order of nature previously appointed; but because, governing heaven and earth by his providence, he so overrules all things that nothing happens without his counsel. For when it is said in the Psalms, “He has done whatsoever he has pleased,” (Psa 115: 3) the thing meant is his sure and deliberate purpose. It were insipid to interpret the Psalmist’s words in philosophic fashion, to mean that God is the primary agent, because the beginning and cause of all motion. This rather is the solace of the faithful, in their adversity, that every thing which they endure is by the ordination and command of God, that they are under his hand. But if the government of God thus extends to all his works, it is a childish cavil to confine it to natural influx. Those moreover who confine the providence of God within narrow limits, as if he allowed all things to be borne along freely according to a perpetual law of nature, do not more defraud God of his glory than themselves of a most useful doctrine; for nothing were more wretched than man if he were exposed to all possible movements of the sky, the air, the earth, and the water. We may add, that by this view the singular goodness of God towards each individual is unbecomingly impaired. David exclaims, (Psa 8: 3) that infants hanging at their mothers breasts are eloquent enough to celebrate the glory of God, because, from the very moment of their births they find an aliment prepared for them by heavenly care. Indeed, if we do not shut our eyes and senses to the fact, we must see that some mothers have full provision for their infants, and others almost none, according as it is the pleasure of God to nourish one child more liberally, and another more sparingly. Those who attribute due praise to the omnipotence of God thereby derive a double benefit. He to whom heaven and earth belong, and whose nod all creatures must obey, is fully able to reward the homage which they pay to him, and they can rest secure in the protection of Him to whose control everything that could do them harm is subject, by whose authority, Satan, with all his furies and engines, is curbed as with a bridle, and on whose will everything adverse to our safety depends. In this way, and in no other, can the immoderate and superstitious fears, excited by the dangers to which we are exposed, be calmed or subdued. I say superstitious fears. For such they are, as often as the dangers threatened by any created objects inspire us with such terror, that we tremble as if they had in themselves a power to hurt us, or could hurt at random or by chance; or as if we had not in God a sufficient protection against them. For example, Jeremiah forbids the children of God ” to be dismayed at the signs of heaven, as the heathen are dismayed at them,” (Jer 10: 2) He does not, indeed, condemn every kind of fear. But as unbelievers transfer the government of the world from God to the stars, imagining that happiness or misery depends on their decrees or presages, and not on the Divine will, the consequence is, that their fear, which ought to have reference to him only, is diverted to stars and comets. Let him, therefore, who would beware of such unbelief, always bear in mind, that there is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.”
Such a horrid, cruel and sadistic man, asserting that all that is wrong in the world can be blamed on God. In reality, if a woman has insufficient milk supply it is likely due to ignorance or want, both brought on by wicked men, and not God. God is not the author or ignorance, want or any depravity. The same is true of disease, hunger and all that is wrong with this world. These are not wretched curses cast upon mankind by a malicious, cruel God, but the rejection by man of God’s authority and ways, which have brought upon humans ever increasing oppression, suffering and misery.
What one sees in Calvin is a wretched theology, believing that bad things happen to ‘them’ because ‘they’ are not God’s special favorites. Except bad things don’t just happen to ‘them’. Righteous men suffer as well, because the god of this world has not yet been permanently dethroned; God temporarily ‘permits’ him to wreak harm upon his creation, before putting an end to evil once and for all. None, and I repeat none, of this evil was predetermined and ordained by God, but ‘merely’ foreseen and permitted. The Calvinist can pretend all he likes that there is no difference between actively ordaining and passively permitting, but the difference is huge. Mere permission of evil is a big enough pill to swallow; imagine being a Calvinist and having to believe all evil comes straight from the ordaining mind and determinate hand of God.
Great point!
And what is so totally ironic – is that Calvinists have a love-hate relationship with their own doctrine.
They boldly reject “mere” permission, any degree of creaturely autonomy, and divine foreknowledge by observation.
And then spend endless hours in deceptive word-juggling – attempting to SNEAK camouflaged forms of those very things back in.
What is this poor Calvinist to do, except craft semantic masquerades of what he finds wanting.
His language serves as a red flag that the Calvinist himself internally recognizes certain things are missing in his theology.
It is missing patterns he finds consistently weaved throughout the entire fabric of scripture.
He becomes like a barren woman, who speaks AS-IF she is not, in order to manufacture in mental imagery, what she lacks in real life. Credibility and plausible deniability otherwise lacking, are carefully crafted in the form of semantic illusions.
Knowing the double-minded state of a Calvinist – certainly no one would want it!
br.d writes, “[Calvinists] boldly reject “mere” permission, ,,,”
That is because God is sovereign and necessarily rules His creation.
Then, “…any degree of creaturely autonomy,…”
That is because God can be autonomous or man can be autonomous, but both cannot be autonomous.
Then, “…and divine foreknowledge by observation.”
That is because Calvinists hold that God is omniscient.
So, take away God’s sovereignty, make man autonomous, and condition God’s knowledge on observation and you have br.d’s god.
br.d
(1) “[Calvinists] boldly reject “mere” permission, ,,,”
(2) …any degree of creaturely autonomy,…”
(3) and divine foreknowledge by observation.”
And then spend endless hours in deceptive word-juggling – attempting to SNEAK camouflaged forms of those very things back in.
What is this poor Calvinist to do, except craft semantic masquerades of what he finds wanting.
rhutchin
(1) That is because God is sovereign and necessarily rules His creation.
(2) That is because God can be autonomous or man can be autonomous, but both cannot be autonomous.
(3) That is because Calvinists hold that God is omniscient.
So, take away God’s sovereignty, make man autonomous, and condition God’s knowledge on observation and you have br.d’s god.
br.d
Thanks rhutchin – this is an excellent example of a strawman argument.
But if you find me explicitly rejecting things – only to spend endless hours in deceptive word-juggling – attempting to SNEAK camouflaged forms of those things back in – you can then honestly attribute that to me. :-]
rhutchin: “So, take away God’s sovereignty, make man autonomous, and condition God’s knowledge on observation and you have br.d’s god.”
br.d: “Thanks rhutchin – this is an excellent example of a strawman argument.”
In other words, br.d says his beliefs are not open to comment and he can believe anything he wants.
rhutchin
So, take away God’s sovereignty, make man autonomous, and condition God’s knowledge on observation and you have br.d’s god.”
br.d
Thanks rhutchin – this is an excellent example of a strawman argument.
rhutchin
In other words, br.d says his beliefs are not open to comment and he can believe anything he wants.
br.d
That conclusion is quite consistent with Calvinism’s pretzel logic!
But its a stretch to actually call it logic.
More like easy-believe-ism :-]
TS00 writes, “These are not wretched curses cast upon mankind by a malicious, cruel God, but the rejection by man of God’s authority and ways, which have brought upon humans ever increasing oppression, suffering and misery.”
This is what Calvinism says. God can cure all disease, give wisdom to all, provide abundantly for all, etc. God conditions blessing on obedience and curses on disobedience. “Now it shall be, if you will diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you will obey the LORD your God….But it shall come about, if you will not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.”
Then, “Righteous men suffer as well, because the god of this world has not yet been permanently dethroned; God temporarily ‘permits’ him to wreak harm upon his creation,…”
At the same time, “we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Then, “The Calvinist can pretend all he likes that there is no difference between actively ordaining and passively permitting,…”
God cannot be passive in anything simply because He is God. There is no difference between actively ordaining and actively permitting, The difference is whether God blesses or curses – both outcomes God ordains..
rh writes:
“God cannot be passive in anything simply because He is God. There is no difference between actively ordaining and actively permitting,”
Except that, by logic and definition, permitting is passive. There is no such thing as ‘active permission’.
rh writes:
“God cannot be passive in anything simply because He is God. There is no difference between actively ordaining and actively permitting,”
br.d
This is based on John Calvin creating and AD-HOC definition of the word “permit” – and ascribing to it CAUSATION as a meaning.
So when Calvinists say Calvin’s go “permits” [X] they mean he CAUSES [X].
But using this definition – since Adam did not obey – it follows that Calvin’s god did not “permit” Adam to obey.
So even after creating altered definitions for words – Calvin still is ensnared in his own dilemmas.
TS00 writes, “Except that, by logic and definition, permitting is passive. There is no such thing as ‘active permission’.”
That’s basically the argument Calvin made against those who said that God only “permits” sin (recognizing that they were trying to separate God from any involvement in sin). Yet, Calvin recognized that God initiates some actions (e.g., destruction of Sodom, impregnation of Mary) and for want of a better term, permits, other actions (e.g., Cain murdering Abel, the stoning of Stephan). In each case, God decides the outcome and can never be described as passive toward anything that happens. No event can happen unless God have decreed it.
Well, you can’t have it both ways, so make up your mind.
rhutchin
May 14, 2019 at 10:20 am
[Calvinists] boldly reject “mere” permission”
That is because God is sovereign and necessarily rules His creation.
rhutchin
May 14, 2019 at 2:06 pm
God initiates some actions…….and for want of a better term, permits, other actions.
br.d
Its not hard to see how deceptive Calvinists can get with their use of “permission” language.
A simple way to DECODE it is to simply replace the term with CAUSE/AUTHOR/RENDER-CERTAIN.
So to decode rhutchin’s 2nd statement above:
Calvin’s god CAUSES/AUTHORS/RENDERS-CERTAIN some events and CAUSES/AUTHORS/RENDERS-CERTAIN others.
And you can see by the way he crafted the statement – the language is designed to SNEAK in a camouflaged form of “mere” permission.
The Calvinist is intuitively aware that this form of Double-Speak – is the only way he escapes painting himself into a corner.
br.d writes, “Its not hard to see how deceptive Calvinists can get with their use of “permission” language.
A simple way to DECODE it is to simply replace the term with CAUSE/AUTHOR/RENDER-CERTAIN.”
The non-Calvinists use “permit” in a different sense. Get them to use it correctly – in the manner you note.
br.d
“Its not hard to see how deceptive Calvinists can get with their use of “permission” language.
A simple way to DECODE it is to simply replace the term with CAUSE/AUTHOR/RENDER-CERTAIN.”
rhutchin
The non-Calvinists use “permit” in a different sense. Get them to use it correctly – in the manner you note.
br.d
FALSE
John Calvin created a PRIVATE definition for the term.
Consequently in Calvinist language it has two radically different meanings
And that is how they can so easily equivocate with it.
The STANDARDIZED definition is from the Latin: “permettere”
Defined as: To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
Prior to the Latin – we have the Greek άδεια which means “to give license”
So non-Calvinists comply with the STANDARDIZED definition in order to avoid misleading people
And Calvinists use a PRIVATE definition – which is always guaranteed to mislead.
As we can see from rhutchin’s statement – they NEVER qualify the term when they use it.
This is not by accident!
Its done constantly by Calvinists to SNEAK a camouflaged form of “mere” permission into their statements.
They do this to retain an APPEARANCE of being biblical.
br.d writes, “John Calvin created a PRIVATE definition for the term…..The STANDARDIZED definition is from the Latin: “permettere”
Defined as: To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
Prior to the Latin – we have the Greek άδεια which means “to give license.”
Calvinists use the standard definition. The verbs used to define “permettere” are action verbs, “God lets,” “God gives up,” God grants.” It puts God in charge meaning that God is the active cause; nothing is “permitted,” unless God decides to permit.. The non-Calvinist focuses on “allow” as if it carries a meaning of lesser involvement than the other terms. It doesn’t and you don’t even try to defend the non-Calvinist position.
rh writes:
“Calvinists use the standard definition. The verbs used to define “permettere” are action verbs, “God lets,” “God gives up,” God grants.” It puts God in charge meaning that God is the active cause; nothing is “permitted,” unless God decides to permit.. The non-Calvinist focuses on “allow” as if it carries a meaning of lesser involvement than the other terms. It doesn’t and you don’t even try to defend the non-Calvinist position.”
Silly, silly and triple silly. There is not a whit of difference between permit and allow, but a Calvinist in a corner sure can dance.
TS00….
Speaking of silly….. I just found this quote from Grudem’s book “Making Sense of Who God Is.” [it should be “making God who we need Him to be…]
“Cotrell has confused God’s decrees before creation with God’s actions in time. It is true that Calvinists would say that God’s eternal decrees were not influenced by any of our actions and cannot be changed by us, since they were made before creation. But to conclude from that that Calvinists think God does not react in time to anything we do, or is not influenced by anything we do, is simply false. No Calvinist theologian known to me has ever said that God is not influenced by what we do or does not react to what we do. He is grieved at our sin. He delights in our praise. He answers our prayers. To say that God does not react to our actions is to deny the whole history of the Bible from Genesis to revelation.
Now a Calvinist would add that God has eternally decreed that he would respond to us as he does. In fact, he has decreed that we would act as we do and he would respond to our actions. But his responses are still genuine responses, his answers to prayer are still genuine answers to prayer, and his delight in our praise is still genuine delight.
[Further down}
….Now some may object that this view makes us mere ”puppets” or ”robots.” But we are puppets or robots; we are real persons. Puppets and robots do not have the power of personal choice or even individual thought . We, by contrast, think, decide, and choose.”
——–
What?
He decreed exactly what we will all do (and how delighted or grieved He will be about it) before time…. but we are are not puppets in His play. Why not…..cuz Grudem KNOWS we are not puppets.
What?
God decided it all before time exactly the way it will go and we cannot influence it one bit; we just act it out like puppets….but we arent puppets.
Whatever….. if it helps you sleep at night Grudem!
FOH writes, “He decreed exactly what we will all do (and how delighted or grieved He will be about it) before time…. but we are are not puppets in His play.”
God made man and knows man intimately. God gave man the ability to think, to collect and understand information, and to make decisions. God’s decrees take into account all the thoughts and desires a person will have so that man is free to act but always subordinate to God’s decrees. God is intimately involved in His creation. As Hannah prayed, ““The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts. He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor;” Paul wrote, “…there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” Eli’s sons , “… would not listen to the voice of their father, for the LORD desired to put them to death.” In Exodus, ““Now Bezalel and Oholiab, and every skillful person in whom the LORD has put skill and understanding to know how to perform all the work in the construction of the sanctuary, shall perform in accordance with all that the LORD has commanded.” Paul wrote that God, “…hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;… For in him we live, and move, and have our being;” In the Psalm, “The LORD knows the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.” In the end, as Isaiah tells us, “Surely as I (the Lord) have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:” In all of God’s interactions with people, He has provided for people to have desires and to pursue those desires. Thus, “the wicked boasts of his heart’s desire…” so we have the warnings in proverbs to stay away from the wicked.
God made man with the freedom to pursue his desires and God’s decrees make this certain. Man’s desires and intents of his heart are uniquely his own even though decreed by God. Thus, Paul, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”
TS00,
It is completely useless to have this conversation with many Calvinists. They say Arminian things like this:
“God gave man the ability to think, to collect and understand information, and to make decisions. God’s decrees take into account all the thoughts and desires a person will have so that man is free to act but always subordinate to God’s decrees.”
While also saying
“God’s eternal decrees were not influenced by any of our actions and cannot be changed by us, since they were made before creation.”
They are mutually exclusive ideas. We cannot have meaningful significance and impact and decisions if all of that was decided immutably before time began. It just cannot be both ways.
Now…… what happens is that they will say the silly part about eternal decrees before time (without biblical support mind you) and then the rest of the explanation they will talk just like an Arminian. Grudem does it in his books “Some people say this position makes people like robots. But we arent robots.” What? What a dumb explanation!!
Here is me saying it to my kids:
Absolutely NONE of you are allowed to go to the ball game tonight! When you get to the ball game make sure to buy a hot dog.
Calvinist version of God:
None of you can influence me or change at all what I have decided/ decreed/ willed/ ordained before time. Please make free-will decisions and call to me in prayer so that you can influence Me.
Nonsense.
rhutchin
God’s decrees TAKE INTO ACCOUNT all the thoughts and desires a person will have
br.d
This phrase TAKE INTO ACCOUNT is specifically crafted to SNEAK in a camouflaged form of Foreknowledge via observation.
And TAKE INTO ACCOUNT is language consistent with Libertarian Free will
In Molinism we have “Middle Knowledge” – God’s knowledge of that state of affairs which would exist in the future – that a LIBERTARIAN FREE creature would have – given the circumstances that creature is in.
Notice how rhutchin’s language allows for a context in which LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL exists.
This language is not by accident – but is highly strategic!
The Calvinist rejects many things – in this case LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL
And then they use language designed to SNEAK in a camouflaged form of the very thing they reject.
Calvinists intuitively know that this form of Double-Speak helps prevent painting oneself into a corner.
br.d writes, “In Molinism we have “Middle Knowledge” – God’s knowledge of that state of affairs which would exist in the future – that a LIBERTARIAN FREE creature would have – given the circumstances that creature is in.”
Of course, God determines the circumstances of the creature, and knows how the creature will react to those circumstances, not by observation, but because He created the creature. God knew Adam would eat the fruit before Eve handed him the fruit; God knew Cain would kill Abel before Cain first thought to do so. God did not have to coerce Adam to eat or Cain to murder – such was their desire.
rhutchin
God knew Adam would eat the fruit before Eve handed him the fruit
br.d
Calvin’s god knew because he AUTHORED and did not permit otherwise.
rhutchin
God knew Cain would kill Abel before Cain first thought to do so.
br.d
Calvin’s god knew because he AUTHORED and did not permit otherwise.
rhutchin
God did not have to coerce Adam to eat or Cain to murder – such was their desire.
br.d
Calvin’s god AUTHORED every creaturely attribute the Calvinist can point to – and did not permit otherwise.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god knew because he AUTHORED and did not permit otherwise.”
Of course, Adam did not want to do otherwise. Adam did exactly that which he desired. Same situation with Cain and with all who sin. Thus, “I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself; Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.” and “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
br.d
Calvin’s god knew because he AUTHORED and did not permit otherwise.”
rhutchin
Of course, Adam did not want to do otherwise.
br.d
Because Calvin’s god AUTHORS all creaturely attributes – and doesn’t permit otherwise
The Calvinist will tell the truth up to a point – but a lie by omission is still a lie.
You mean as in ‘Adam did not want to do otherwise’ because Adam COULD NOT want to do otherwise? Because Calvi-god ordains man’s desires so that he will do as Calvi-god ordains/determines/causes/directs/compels/desires/wills? Sort of an important concept to leave out, dontcha think?
TS00 writes, “You mean as in ‘Adam did not want to do otherwise’ because Adam COULD NOT want to do otherwise?”
Adam could not do otherwise because he had no desire to do otherwise. God gave Adam the ability to desire but did not plant specific desires within him except that God made Adam pure with no inclination toward evil. Once God made Eve and Adam saw her, he then desired her. God had ordained that Adam be ruled by his desires -especially as they related to Eve), and thereby made certain Adam’s decision to eat the fruit. Had Adam had more information, more understanding, and more wisdom, he could easily have done otherwise but God withheld such from Adam and with that knowledge, understanding, and wisdom he had at that moment, Adam could not do other than that which he desired consistent with his knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. God, by ordaining that Adam eat the fruit, did not also have to ordain coercive means for this to happen. Adam operated in a non-coercive environment (granting that seeing his wife offering him fruit that she had eaten could be viewed as coercive).
In the past, you have strained to define free will and what it is to choose otherwise, so you have no room for objection in this instance. You can’t even conceive a situation where Adam could choose otherwise without denying Adam’s desires.
Under Calvinism, the concept of fleshly desire is seriously misunderstood. All men are made of flesh, and built into that flesh are the natural desires for food, water, sex, etc. that ensure the survival of the species. But man is to rule over those desires, keeping them under control and in healthy moderation. When the individual fails to do this, sin arises.
Any individual who is not a pathological narcissist has daily experiences denying and moderating his desires. Confronted with a buffet that offers endless culinary delights, a person must rein in the flesh and not overconsume. Married people experience times of physical desire that must be denied, as their spouse is not able or willing to comply. A parent suppresses his or her personal desires countless times a day, as they selflessly meet the needs of dependent infants. An employee frequently must suppress his true desires to comply with the demands of his employer.
Again, only a pathological narcissist pursues only and always his own desires. Normal, healthy people are constantly juggling, moderating and suppressing desires that would not serve the best interests of others around them. I honestly do not see the slightest bit of truth to the ‘man always follows his desires’ mantra rhutchin spouts. I would certainly hate to live with such a person.
This premise is neither logical nor proven by scripture or life. The man who cannot control his desires, but is controlled by them, is a man who is enslaved to sin and on his way to depraved living. It is absurd to posit that man only does as he desires, as this is repeatedly proven false in daily living. The concept of not letting one’s flesh rule over them is misunderstood, or intentionally distorted by those who seek to preserve the doctrine of Divine Determinism.
TS00 writes, “An employee frequently must suppress his true desires to comply with the demands of his employer.”
This is foolishness. A person does what he is told because his desire to avoid being fired and losing his paycheck overrides his “true” desires which true desires are to be wealthy and have to work for others. This is a childish look at personal desires. One spouse yields to the desires of the other because of a desire to avoid confrontation, or divorce, or whatever. The point here is that the Calvinist claim that the “strongest” desire at the moment prevails is not proven wrong by your examples. Your true desires always reveal themselves in the decisions and actions you take despite your denial of this – perhaps because you want to see yourself differently. If a person is not controlled by his desires, then what does control desires but the strongest desire? All the will does is sort desires by consequences and seek to gain positive consequences and avoid negative consequences.
What a pagan, narcissistic view. We are simply controlled by our unchosen desires, what will be, will be. This is the myth God puts the lie to. We are not simply fleshly creatures who are helpless slaves to our desires, strongest or otherwise.
The strongest desire of the flesh is to survive. And yet Jesus demonstrated, in perhaps the true meaning of the freedom from sin he provides, that one can conquer that desire of the flesh and lay down one’s life for others. That, my friend, is the ultimate proof of your error.
Perhaps it is no wonder we are seeing the explosion of sexual abuse and other spiritual abuse issues within Reformed circles. When one rejects God’s call, as given to Cain, to rule over the flesh, one will eventually become its slave. Reformed Theology essentially opens the door to such concupiscence, admitted and decried by Calvin and Luther.
They did not seem to understand how distorting the concept of sin and the flesh led people to believe it was a battle they need no longer undertake. Simply embrace the penal substitution atonement theory, and you’ve got Jesus to cover for you. No more worry about sin!
For the genuine child of God, who wishes to not only escape the consequences of sin, but its gross enslavement, such theology will be no assistance. The believer who desires to be free from sin must take ever seriously its beguiling allure, and the need to resist it. Calvinism offers the willing sinner an excuse to ‘sin boldly’. I experienced this inadvertently, and was appalled to see that this mindset leads to a gradual carelessness concerning sanctification. My pastor saw it as well, and was dismayed; but of course he could not see that the root cause was the theology itself. Sin takes advantage of our faulty thinking and will eventually re-enslave us.
TS00
You mean as in ‘Adam did not want to do otherwise’ because Adam COULD NOT want to do otherwise?”
rhutchin
Adam could not do otherwise because he had no desire to do otherwise.
br.d
Here is where the Calvinist reminds me of the snake eating its own tail :-]
[A] CAUSED [B] because [B] CAUSED [A]
br.d writes, “[A] CAUSED [B] because [B] CAUSED [A]”
Which has nothing to do with this discussion unless you had something relevant expressed in [A] and [B]. Of course, we don’t know because you have difficulty framing arguments.
Here, we have God causes Adam to sin and Adam causes/desires his sin. Thus, God causes Adam to do that which he desires to do. The means for God causing Adam to sin is not external coercion but internal factors unique to Adam – his desires, will, knowledge, understanding, wants, needs, etc.
br.d
Here is where the Calvinist reminds me of the snake eating its own tail :-]
“[A] CAUSED [B] because [B] CAUSED [A]”
rhutchin
Which has nothing to do with this discussion ……etc
br.d
Silly – is is the very focal!
Here you say the focal point has “nothing to do with the discussion” – and then you carry on addressing the focal point.
rhutchin
Here, we have God causes Adam to sin
br.d
TRUE – but only in Calvinism
rhutchin
and Adam causes/desires his sin.
br.d
FALSE in Calvinism
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “merely” permitted Adam to have an attribute (e.g. desire/want/nature etc)
Calvin’s god AUTHORS all creaturely attributes – and does not permit otherwise
rhutchin
The means for God causing Adam to sin is not external coercion but INTERNAL FACTORS unique to Adam – his desires, will, knowledge, understanding, wants, needs, etc.
br.d
Coercion is a superfluous red-herring – since *ALL* FACTORS are determined outside of Adam’s control.
Calvin’s god AUTHORS *ALL* attributes and does not permit otherwise.
But the Calvinist wants to claim [A] CAUSES [B] because [B] CAUSES [A]
Yup! :-]
Always reminds me of Genesis 3:1
“And the Calvinist was the most subtle beast in the field of protestant Christianity” :-]
TS00
but a Calvinist in a corner sure can dance.
br.d
What do you think – is this rhutchin’s “greased pig” mode or his “dancing boxer” routine? :-]
TS00 writes, “Silly, silly and triple silly. There is not a whit of difference between permit and allow, but a Calvinist in a corner sure can dance.”
Exactly. It is the non-Calvinist who wants to make a distinction making God a passive player when the definition makes God an active player in permitting. That is what Calvin pointed to by identifying the non-Calvinist position as making “permission” to be “mere/bare permission.”
rhutchin
It is the non-Calvinist who wants to make a distinction making God a passive player when the definition makes God an active player in permitting. That is what Calvin pointed to by identifying the non-Calvinist position as making “permission” to be “mere/bare permission.”
br.d
FALSE
The STANDARDIZED definition is from the Latin: “permettere”
Defined as: To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
Prior to the Latin – we have the Greek άδεια which means “to give license”
Nowhere in this definition is permit defined as CAUSE
And the STANDARDIZED usage in language never conflates “permit” with CAUSE
Its obvious Calvin created his own PRIVATE definition – making it mean CAUSE
Since Calvinists know that no one outside of Calvinism ever uses the term “permit” to mean CAUSE – it becomes obvious Calvinists use it to SNEAK in a camouflaged form of “mere” permission.
Paul: “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?”.
Jesus: “Let your communications be yea yea or nay nay – for anything else comes of evil”.
Hutch, I would like to continue our previous exchange. You had said:
“Yes – “…God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” and “…God does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’ If one says that God is omnipotent, he must agree with these. If you can legitimately take such Scripture to say that God does not determine all things, do so.”
I replied with:
Sure, I can. It does not even hint that God determines all things, only that He “does what He pleases” and “no one can ward of His hand or question him”. How does either of those phrases = determines all things? Those phrases say what they mean, they don’t “actually” mean something else in the background.
Eric,
I dont think you will get a biblical answer that will satisfy because the whole idea is based on what they BRING to the Bible.
I quoted Grudem on this string today, and here is part of it,
“It is true that Calvinists would say that God’s eternal decrees were not influenced by any of our actions and cannot be changed by us, since they were made before creation.”
They bring to the Word (based on a few verses that you are discussing) the idea that God decreed everything (unchangeable, immutable) before time. They do not NEED to prove it. It “must” be true or “He is not God”.
But as you know they want it both ways….cuz a few sentences later Grudem says….
“But to conclude from that that Calvinists think God does not react in time to anything we do, or is not influenced by anything we do, is simply false.”
We cannot influence Him, but we do influence Him.
So….good luck with Hutch on that.
FOH
We cannot influence Him, but we do influence Him.
br.d
Excellent post FOH!
Yes – the Calvinist focus is not on truth-telling.
Its on making Calvinism APPEAR acceptable.
Calvinism has its own unique INSIDER language, where many words, terms and phrases have duplicitous, illusory,
and/or amorphous meanings.
When a Calvinist communicates, he often presents by inference, conceptions that are the logical inverse of what he explicitly believes.
Eventually this Doublespeak language becomes his normalcy, and he speaks it without even thinking.
They speak a CODED language.
Its then totally understandable that Calvinists complain they are misrepresented.
rhutchin: “If you can legitimately take such Scripture to say that God does not determine all things, do so.””
Eric Kemp:”Sure, I can. It does not even hint that God determines all things, only that He “does what He pleases” and “no one can ward of His hand or question him”. How does either of those phrases = determines all things? Those phrases say what they mean, they don’t “actually” mean something else in the background.”
So, your argument is to ask a question:”How does either of those phrases = determines all things? ” Asking a question is not an argument. Regardless, if you could point to any event where God does not do as He pleases with regard to that event, then you could prove your case. You cannot, so you say I have to prove my understanding of the Scripture. Let’s look at that.
The Scripture says, “God does whatever He pleases.” As God is omnipotent, He can intervene at any point in history and in any event and exert His will to gain the outcome He wants. The question is, Does God do this for all events – does God determine every event that happens? The Calvinist says that God has the final decision, by omnipotence, in every event. Thus, God decides whether to change the natural course of events to gain a different outcome or do nothing and let natural events play out. Either way, God determined the outcome. If that is wrong, then argue against it.
Let’s look at God’s involvement in the world. Ephesian1 tells us that, “God works all things after the counsel of His will.” As a subset, Romans 8 tells us, “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” That seems conclusive to me.
What does God determine with respect to salvation?
– “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me.” (John 6)
– “God made believers alive together with Christ.” (Ephesians 2)
– “no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12)
– “God delivered believers from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”
– “By grace you are saved.” (Ephesians 2)
– – “So then [whether one is a child of promise] does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9)
So, we can understand these verses to say that God determines who is saved.
What of unbelievers”
– Jesus said, “No one can come to Me.” (John 6)
– “If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4)
We learn from Job, that Satan cannot act but as God determines. We can understand these verses to say that God determines who is lost.
In the important case of Salvation, we see that God does as He pleases and determines who will be saved.
So, does God determine all things. If you can legitimately take the Scriptures to say that God does not determine all things, do so. Asking questions is not an argument. Is that all you have?
Exegetical Fallacies – by Jerry Wierwille
Fallacy #1:
Biblical interpretation is susceptible to false premises in the process of exegesis by violating laws of language and logic, and maintaining faulty presuppositions.
Rhutchin writes:
“What does God determine with respect to salvation?
– “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me.” (John 6)
– “God made believers alive together with Christ.” (Ephesians 2)
– “no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12)
– “God delivered believers from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”
– “By grace you are saved.” (Ephesians 2)
– – “So then [whether one is a child of promise] does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9)
So, we can understand these verses to say that God determines who is saved.”
You are correct only in saying that you ‘can’ understand (interpret) these verses to say that God determines who is saved. Far better, and far more consistent with the character of God, is to interpret them to mean that ‘God determines to save those who put their trust in him’.
What a tragic, blasphemous and hideous distortion Calvinism makes of the genuine good news scripture gives us that if we simply trust God he will be faithful to save us, in spite of our lack of perfection, as well as anything that might happen in this world.
How ugly, and inconsistent with all else that scripture reveals, to twist the meaning of such assuring verses into saying, ‘Don’t worry, since God chose who will be saved, none will be lost but those he deliberately created to perish. Either you were elect from eternity past, or he always intended to damn you.’
Of course, Calvinists rarely put it so bluntly. They simply say that if God chose you, you shall not perish. It sounds so comforting when presented with only its positive side, that many embrace it and refuse to ever consider just what else it demands. It is comforting until you reason through to its unavoidable logical corollary, that if God did not choose you, you are hopelessly, helplessly, unavoidably doomed.
Many prefer to avoid even pondering this inescapable corollary, which demands that God be partial, in randomly choosing some to save over others equally undeserving, cruel in creating a good many beings without even a chance to be rescued from the sin they were (supposedly) cursed with before they were ever born, and sadistic, in mocking the hopeless with empty calls to repentance and forgiveness which were never genuinely available to them.
I yet recall as the most precious work the Holy Spirit ever did in my life the moment when, as a twenty year old college student he opened my eyes to the meaning of Romans 8:29-39:
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
I had been examining Calvinism for the first of what would prove to be many times, as I was considering a relationship with the Calvinist I eventually married. And while I rejected the predestination and limited atonement necessary to this faulty system, in the process of pondering such things God freed me from the lack of assurance that often accompanies a lack of belief in OSAS.
Having grown up in a Holiness denomination, I always struggled with guilt and fear, knowing that I could not possible be ‘good enough’ to call myself sinless, which my faulty doctrine dictated I must be. So vanquishing two errors with one stone, God gave to me the lifelong assurance and peace that my salvation was solely in his hands, and that nothing could separate me from his faithful love and promise, not even my imperfections.
I praise him to this day for that precious revelation, and the unqualified assurance he gave to me that I was his, and need have no fear. But such a precious assurance did not demand that I sacrifice the love of God for all men, his sincere desire to draw all to himself to receive the benefit of his love, mercy and power to save. For that
TS00 writes, “You are correct only in saying that you ‘can’ understand (interpret) these verses to say that God determines who is saved…I yet recall as the most precious work the Holy Spirit ever did in my life the moment when, as a twenty year old college student he opened my eyes to the meaning of Romans 8:29-39:”
So, did God save you or do you still consider yourself reprobate?
I would take issue with your terminology. I do not affirm reprobation, nor do I view salvation as something that happened in the past; rather, all who put their trust in God’s gracious provision for sin are promised salvation from a future judgment and second death.
As I had long ago put my trust in God, and had walked with him for many years, this was a moment when the Spirit of God led me into greater understanding of his love for me. When the time was ripe, his Spirit revealed the meaning of words I had read many times but never understood. Without man-directed theological instruction, seeing the desire of my heart to understand, the Spirit of God ministered to my Spirit.
This is the sort of intimate interaction I perceive many Calvinists do not understand, as they put too great emphasis on Gnosis and doctrine and too little on the deepening relationship which our beloved Father desires to have with us. When I realized that I had sacrificed something deeply personal for rote religion, I knew I had made a mistake. The false assurance of Calvinism’s Penal Substitution (ticket to heaven) does not compare to intimate communion with the living God.
Hutch,
“Regardless, if you could point to any event where God does not do as He pleases with regard to that event, then you could prove your case.”
You keep assuming that God is pleased to determine all things. Why are you assuming that?
“The Calvinist says that God has the final decision, by omnipotence, in every event. Thus, God decides whether to change the natural course of events to gain a different outcome or do nothing and let natural events play out.”
“Ephesian1 tells us that, “God works all things after the counsel of His will.” As a subset, Romans 8 tells us, “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” That seems conclusive to me.”
Conclusive to what, that in all things God is working after the counsel of his will? Of course, he is, how does that say He determines all events that happen? Same question for Romans 8. You’re just repeating passages that say God does one thing, you make a logical deduction they mean “God does all things”, and then tell me the passage means “God does all things”. But the Bible never says that.
“If you can legitimately take the Scriptures to say that God does not determine all things, do so. Asking questions is not an argument. Is that all you have?”
Yes, I take the Scriptures to say God is doing the specific things it says He is doing. You’re adding things to the Scriptures that God does, namely, “all things”. And you expect not to have to defend that claim? You’re getting salty about being asked the question?
Eric:
For the record, Calvinists take verses that say some particular thing and extrapolate that out as they like.
They do that with the “He turns the heart of the king” verse and take it to mean He determines all things.
Piper even does it (I kid you not) with the “man rolls the dice to cast lots but God decided the outcome” Proverb and makes it doctrine that He determines all things.
Any kind of “He rules from the heavens” or “He is above all things” verse can be (and is!) taken by determinists to mean what they say.
Keep up your logical/ biblical approach and perhaps some readers will “be persuaded” (cuz they do have a choice!).
FOH writes, “They do that with the “He turns the heart of the king” verse and take it to mean He determines all things.”
Did you purposely reverse this?? Calvinists take a verse like Ephesians 1:11, “God works (or determines) all things after the counsel of His will,” and then cite examples in Proverbs 21, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes,” or Proverbs 16, “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
Rhutchin writes:
“Calvinists take a verse like Ephesians 1:11, “God works (or determines) all things after the counsel of His will,” and then cite examples in Proverbs 21, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes,” or Proverbs 16, “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
Just one possibility, as I look, for instance, at a verse like Proverbs 21:1. Water has certain properties, designed by God. And yet, should he wish to provide sustenance to a needy place or people, God can intervene so that water will flow to a particular place without overruling its natural properties. He could, perhaps, see that a channel is made, either by men or some other natural force.
The same is true of a king. Scripture tends to portray the kings of this earth as not particularly open to following God, but arrogantly pursuing their own wills. A king, intent on pursuing his own personal wealth and pleasure is susceptible to fleshly temptations. God could easily see to it that the king’s selfish desires are channeled in a particular direction, without in any way interfering in the king’s intention to pursue selfish ends. A king set on building up a vast kingdom and possessions, may be led to overlook one intended victim when a more lucrative one appears. Thus, without either determining the king’s wicked ways or preventing them, God can work to channel them away from or toward some ends that will best serve his greater plan.
That is just one possibility, and I am not claiming my contemplations are inerrant truth. It is ignorant and arrogant to assert that one’s particular interpretation of a word or words is the only possible one.
TS00 writes,”Thus, without either determining the king’s wicked ways….”
You will often sound like a Calvinist, as when you say, “A king, intent on pursuing his own personal wealth and pleasure is susceptible to fleshly temptations. God could easily see to it that the king’s selfish desires are channeled in a particular direction, without in any way interfering in the king’s intention to pursue selfish ends.” and “Thus, without either determining the king’s wicked ways or preventing them, God can work to channel them away from or toward some ends that will best serve his greater plan.”
Is this not what the scriptures say, “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” Did not God determine the birth of the king and the circumstances of his birth? Did not God install him as king? Now, you agree that God directs )or channels) his steps. Yet, you claim no to believe what you write.
Logically, the very existence of sin, evil and death proves that God does not deterministically do only as he pleases, deterministically ordaining all things to be, unless one concedes that God is pleased by sin, evil and death, thus determined, that they should exist. Note that under a deterministic system, there is no possibility of God ordaining that something ‘could’ exist; hence Calvin’s harsh condemnation of ‘mere permission’. Under Determinism, all must exist as it does, because God has ordained that it should be so.
This is the hopeless conundrum of the Calvinist, as he tries to hold to the logical impossibility of a good and holy God ruling deterministically and the existence of evil, apart from making God the willing author of evil. Either he does not determine all things, or he is evil. The magical, mystical have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too compatibilism is a feint, and a not terribly convincing one at that. It simply cannot hold up to logical examination. Hence the constant appeal to authority.
TS00 writes, “Logically, the very existence of sin, evil and death proves that God does not deterministically do only as he pleases,…”
Because God is omnipotent, sin, evil, and death could not exist unless it pleased God for them to exist. Otherwise, God would prevent such things.
rhutchin
Because God is omnipotent, sin, evil, and death could not exist unless it pleased God for them to exist. Otherwise, God would prevent such things.
br.d
Please provide a scripture verse which EXPLICITLY states this.
And please don’t waste my time using a proof-text like “and Methuselah begat Lamech” :-]
I, for one, completely reject the assertion that sin, evil and death please God. I haven’t the slightest doubt that such deeply displeases him. Not only does he say so countless times in scripture, but the existence of atonement, punishment and the entire plan of redemption only make logical sense if God hates sin and evil and has a plan to deal with them once and for all. Just as he has spelled out. The only logical explanation for sin and evil, and one which takes into account the entirety of scripture, would be if God had created man with the freedom to resist his will and good pleasure.
But Calvinists insist on maligning God’s character, asserting that he desired, ordained and deliberately brought into existence sin and evil. I will leave it to the reader to study scripture and discern the truth for himself. If you come to scripture with Calvinist spectacles, or any other lens that distorts the meaning of the words, you will of course only see what you came convinced you would see.
I understand and agree with you TS00
But Calvinists are so full of double-speak – it won’t be long before rhutchin is crafting statements designed to portray the opposite of what he currently stating.
So nothing Calvin’s say surprises me at this point.
A truth about Calvinism which they refuse to acknowledge – is the fact that there is absolutely nothing about Calvin’s god that human being can possibly trust – except that he does whatever he pleases.
Which is why I allege that the Doctrines of Grace are actually the Doctrines of Despotism. There is no freely offered love, no healing balm for the disease of sin and no full and free atonement that offers life to all who respond in trusting faith to God’s promises.
There is only control, control, control, as a God who determines whatsoever comes to pass in his created world is the only determining factor to what will be. If he wants a sinless world, he will make it thus. If he wants sin and evil, he will make it thus. One need not even look at scripture to see what God says he wants – one need only look around, for whatever has come to pass is what he wanted to come to pass.
In the non-Calvinist alternative, God created beings with a genuine freedom of choice. That means they are able to choose evil, when he truly only desires that they choose good. They are able to reject him, when all he ever desired was to dwell with them in loving harmony. They are able to take the matter of earth and forge weapons that harm and kill, when God desires that men love one another and live peaceably together.
I could go on and on, but I trust I made my point. Under Calvinism, whatever is, is what God desired, or what pleases him to have exist. The alternative worldview sees God relinquishing the control he could very easily have, and allowing mere mortal creatures to resist his will and do things that do not at all please him. Which better conforms with the narratives of scripture, and reality as we know it?
The ironic thing is – all of the very things that you point to as despotic in Calvinism – Calvinists refuse to acknowledge – and yet at the same time do everything they can to evade and escape how it might apply in their own lives.
No logical sane person understanding that aspect of Calvinism would want to be one.
And I feel sorry for them myself!
The sad thing is that what it really requires is either ignorance of the true facts or extreme selfishness. I believe the former is true of so many, who hear their pastors and leading Calvinists speak as if they can hold to both Divine Determinism and a John 3:16 grace. It cannot be done, but many are fooled. It is the second category, those who actually know what Calvinism demands that most disturbs me. Let’s acknowledge that under their system, they – if they are indeed elect – partake of all of the many blessings we so desire. And yet, they have no qualms about shrugging off the many who never had a chance, for whom Jesus did not die, and for whom grace was never truly intended.
I try to hope that most Calvinists fall into the former category, and simply do not apply consistent logic to their system, instead trusting their beloved authorities to do the heavy lifting. But for the arrogant and hard-hearted, who proudly proclaim ‘I am an unapologetic, 5-point Calvinist’ as one recently posted on another blog, I feel only horror and dismay. They know full well that their theology demands a dictatorial God who deliberately created many for unavoidable destruction, and they shrug it off as if it doesn’t matter. Oh well, too bad, who am I to question God? How sad is that? They don’t even know that something important inside of them, the love for others that Jesus commanded, is missing.
Yes I totally agree.
You are echoing the topic of David Hunt’s book – in regard to Calvinism he asks “What love is this?”
br.d writes, “You are echoing the topic of David Hunt’s book – in regard to Calvinism he asks “What love is this?””
Hunt appears to be an Universalist judging by his book.
br.d
“You are echoing the topic of David Hunt’s book – in regard to Calvinism he asks “What love is this?””
rhutchin
Hunt appears to be an Universalist judging by his book.
br.d
I wonder how much different that would be from being a Gnostic NeoPlatonist. :-]
TS00 writes, “leading Calvinists speak as if they can hold to both Divine Determinism and a John 3:16 grace.”
John 3:16 is deterministic. Only those who believe in Christ receive eternal life, and only those who receive faith then believe. Those who do not believe have hearts that are Totally Depraved and their minds have been blinded by Satan. There is no ability for such to believe unless, and until, God gives then that ability through a new birth and faith.
TS00 writes, “The alternative worldview sees God relinquishing the control he could very easily have, and allowing mere mortal creatures to resist his will and do things that do not at all please him.”
This is what Calvinism says. Did not God stand by and do nothing while Adam ate the fruit? Did not God stand by and do nothing as they crucified the Christ? God is always allowing people to resist His will – it is His major complaint against Israel and the common theme of all the prophets, major and minor.
rhutchin
This is what Calvinism says. Did not God stand by and do nothing while Adam ate the fruit?
br.d
What a hoot! Didn’t Calvin’s god stand by CAUSING Adam do eat the fruit – *AS-IF* he “merely” permitted it.
rhutchin
Did not God stand by and do nothing as they crucified the Christ?
br.d
Didn’t Calvin’s god stand by CAUSING them to crucify Jesus – *AS-IF* he “merely” permitted it.
rhutchin
God is always ALLOWING people to resist His will
br.d
Calvin’s god is always CAUSING people to resist his will *AS-IF* he is “merely” allowing it.
CONCLUSION:
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points. :-]
TS00 writes, “But Calvinists insist on maligning God’s character, asserting that he desired, ordained and deliberately brought into existence sin and evil.”
Could Satan have entered the garden without God’s approval? Didn’t God stand by and do nothing as Satan tempted Eve and she ate the fruit. Didn’t God also watch as Eve offered the fruit to Adam and Adam ate and He did nothing? What part of the process did God not determine by His inaction if nothing else? What did you think was going on??
br.d writes, “Please provide a scripture verse which EXPLICITLY states this.”
We have examples.
In speaking of David’s punishment, ““Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.”
Of Eli’s sons, “Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD…Thus the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD, for the men despised the offering of the LORD…Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting. And he said to them, “Why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people? If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the LORD desired to put them to death.”
Elijah on Mt Carmel, “Then it came about at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that Thou, O LORD, art God, and that Thou hast turned their heart back again.”
In the rebuilding of the temple, “they observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had caused them to rejoice, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them to encourage them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.”
These are examples of Ephesians 1, “God works all things after the counsel of His will.” And Solomon, “Consider the work of God, For who is able to straighten what He has bent? In the day of prosperity be happy, But in the day of adversity consider– God has made the one as well as the other.”
rhutchin
Because God is omnipotent, sin, evil, and death could not exist unless it pleased God for them to exist. Otherwise, God would prevent such things.
br.d
Please provide a scripture verse which EXPLICITLY states this.
And please don’t waste my time using a proof-text like “and Methuselah begat Lamech” :-]
rhutchin
We have examples:
In speaking of David’s punishment, ““Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.”
br.d
Where does god in this text EXPLICITLY state he is pleased about this?
rhutchin
Of Eli’s sons, “Now the sons of Eli were worthless men…….for the LORD desired to put them to death.”
br.d
Where does god in this text EXPLICITLY state he is pleased about this?
rhutchin
In the rebuilding of the temple, “they observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread ….etc
br.d
Where does this text EXPLICITLY state sin, evil, and death could not exist unless it pleased God?
I remember a certain bible teacher who asserted any Christian man without a butch hair cut was living in sin because Paul says: “Nature teaches it is a dishonor for a man to have long hair”.
That’s what Calvinist hermeneutics looks like :-]
br.d writes, “Where does god in this text EXPLICITLY state he is pleased about this?”
We read in the Psalm, “God does whatever He pleases.” Then we read of God that God desired to put the sons of Eli to death. Your question is “Where does god in this text EXPLICITLY state he is pleased about this?” How explicit do you want it – “God does whatever He pleases.” Why would we think that God is not pleased to kill the sons of Eli since that was His intent?
br.d
Where does god in this text EXPLICITLY state he is pleased about this?”
rhutchin
We read in the Psalm, “God does whatever He pleases.”
br.d
DUH! The context of that verse is to affirm that God is not limited and can do whatever he wants.
It does not state he is pleased with everything he does.
The scripture also speaks of god’s displeasure.
Your theory would include the deriving of pleasure out of displeasure – which is a totally sophomoric and irrational hermeneutic.
Its also classified as Sadistic Personality Disorder
rhutchin
How explicit do you want it
br.d
EXPLICIT enough to escape fallacious hermeneutics – which is unfortunately what you have.
rhutchin
– “God does whatever He pleases.” Why would we think that God is not pleased to kill the sons of Eli since that was His intent?
br.d
See answer above.
Who appointed you to speak for God – things that God does not speak for himself.
Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.
br.d writes, “It does not state he is pleased with everything he does.”
It also does not say that God is displeased with His actions. If God were displeased with any action He could take (ordain in eternity past), he is able to do otherwise and the presupposition ought to be that God does.
Then, “The scripture also speaks of god’s displeasure.”
The Scriptures say that God is displeased with the actions of people. If you know a Scripture that tells us God was displeased with an action He took, ow about sharing it.
br.d
“It does not state he is pleased with everything he does.”
The scripture also speaks of god’s displeasure.
Your theory would include the deriving of pleasure out of displeasure – which is a totally sophomoric and irrational hermeneutic.
Its also classified as Sadistic Personality Disorder
rhutchin
It also does not say that God is displeased with His actions.
br.d
But it does say that God experiences displeasure – so you’re back to god experiencing pleasure in being displeased.
rhutchin
If God were displeased with any action He could take….the presupposition ought to be that God does.
br.d
You really need to take a course in elementary logic!
This fallacy is called “Evidence from Absence”
Catholic version:
The bible doesn’t say that Mary was born without sin – the presupposition out to be that she was
rhutchin
The Scriptures say that God is displeased with the actions of people. If you know a Scripture that tells us God was displeased with an action He took, ow about sharing it.
br,d
DUH!
(1) It is EXPLICITLY recorded in scripture that experiencing displeasure is something that God does.
So you want him to take pleasure in doing that – and you’re back to Sadistic Personality Disorder
(2) In Calvinism – whatever comes to pass with the creature – is what Calvin’s god does with the creature.
Your theory has Calvin’s god taking pleasure in expressing displeasure.
But then – since Calvinism is 90% double-think – this doesn’t surprise me at all! :-]
Y’all get pretty confusing sometimes. 😉 I would suggest that God’s displeasure is with the actions of men, but the logical implication of Divine Determinism demands that he is displeased with actions he himself ordained. So, in effect, he is displeased with what he himself ordained and brought to pass. Subtle distinction, and one that the Calvinist constantly tries to distort, affirming God’s meticulous divine control over everything one minute, then asserting that man is to blame for his own evil (meticulously controlled) acts the next. ‘God alone determines whatsoever comes to pass’, and ‘man is responsible for his own sinful choices ‘ cannot both be true, but the Calvinist appears to be free from any bounds of logic.
How silly of Calvi-god to ordain that man would do nothing but evil all day long, then be so angry at them for doing evil that he consumes them all in a flood! How silly of Calvi-god to ordain that Israel would be stiff-necked and rebellious, then constantly express his displeasure at their stiff-neckedness and rebellion; and even try to punish them into repentance! Silly Calvi-god, how can man ever turn from what he has decreed must be?
Calvinism, or Divine Determinism, requires a foolish God, who condemns with one hand what he ordains and brings irresistibly to pass with the other. And he peevishly blames the poor dupes who only do what he ordains and wills. ‘You, oh man, will burn for being hopelessly sinful’. Er, didn’t he (supposedly) curse the poor wretch to be born sinful and not offer him any escape from such an estate? Silly, silly Calvi-god.
TS00 writes, ‘‘God alone determines whatsoever comes to pass’, and ‘man is responsible for his own sinful choices ‘ cannot both be true, but the Calvinist appears to be free from any bounds of logic.”
The death of Christ disproves this. “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.”
Exactly right!
He AUTHORS [X] – and does not permit [NOT X] – and then holds the creature accountable for [X].
Logic tells us – Calvin’s god CANNOT RENDER-CERTAIN both [X] and [NOT X] because one negates the other.
He can only RENDER-CERTAIN one of them.
This is why Peter Van Inwagen in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will writes:
“Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.”
Therefore Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN Adam’s sin – and does not permit Adam to NOT sin.
This is like a father locking his daughter in a closet and then punishing her for being in the closet.
br.d writes, ‘Therefore Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN Adam’s sin – and does not permit Adam to NOT sin.”
Yet, God provides for Adam to pursue his desire.
Then, “This is like a father locking his daughter in a closet and then punishing her for being in the closet.”
You are not good at examples. It should be, “”This is like a father locking his daughter in a closet and telling her not to do X even though he knows she desires to do X and then punishing her for doing X while in the closet.”
br.d
Therefore Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN Adam’s sin – and does not permit Adam to NOT sin.”
rhutchin
Yet, God provides for Adam to pursue his desire.
br.d
A Calvinist can tell the truth up to a point – but a lie by omission is still a lie.
Calvin’s god AUTHORS all creaturely attributes – and doesn’t permit otherwise.
Then, “This is like a father locking his daughter in a closet and then punishing her for being in the closet.”
rhutchin
You are not good at examples. It should be, “”This is like a father locking his daughter in a closet and telling her not to do X even though he knows she desires to do X and then punishing her for doing X while in the closet.”
br.d
Actually I the example perfectly!
Your version was just lying by omission. :-]
br.d writes, ‘(1) It is EXPLICITLY recorded in scripture that experiencing displeasure is something that God does.”
Fine. Just cite the Scripture to which you refer. We know that God is displeased with the actions of people. However, we need the Scripture you reference where God is displeased with His actions.
br.d
(1) It is EXPLICITLY recorded in scripture that experiencing displeasure is something that God does.”
rhutchin
Fine. Just cite the Scripture to which you refer. We know that God is displeased with the actions of people. However, we need the Scripture you reference where God is displeased with His actions.
br.d
You’re not getting it
Being displeases is something God can *DO*.
Your theory has God taking pleasure in *DOING IT* (i.e. being displeased).
And secondly – Calvin’s god being displeased with the actions he MAKES others DO is simply Calvin’s god being displeased with what he himself DOES.
So your theory becomes even more twisted – Calvin’s god taking pleasure in being displeased with what he himself did.
br.d writes, “So your theory becomes even more twisted – ”
br.d could not find Scripture to support his claims, so he loses it.
br.d
You’re not getting it
Being displeases is something God can *DO*.
Your theory has God taking pleasure in *DOING IT* (i.e. being displeased).
And secondly – Calvin’s god being displeased with the actions he MAKES others DO is simply Calvin’s god being displeased with what he himself DOES.
So your theory becomes even more twisted – Calvin’s god taking pleasure in being displeased with what he himself did.
rhutchin
br.d could not find Scripture to support his claims, so he loses it.
br.d
Too funny!
The Calvinist makes a claim which turns out to be fallacious and then asserts someone else makes a claim.
Burden of proof always rests on the initial claim – not the one who showed that claim to be silly and absurd :-]
Another thing you’ll find with Calvinists – (and its especially pronounced with Hutch) is Double-Speak.
Calvinists explicitly claim to reject certain things – but when you scrutinize their statements you find they use a ton of highly subtle language tricks to SNEAK those things – right back into their system.
– any decree whatsoever of creaturely autonomy
– “mere” permission
– divine foreknowledge via observation
Their system is full of self-contradictions – which they’ve historically tried on people and gotten caught.
And when they get caught – they simply learn how to reword statements to better cloak the contradiction.
Eric – if you haven’t see this video – its worth checking it out
Even an atheist can see through Calvinism’s world of incoherence
Calvinism is intrinsically irrational
Somehow the link didn’t get populated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5hrTkrd1JI
br.d writes, ‘Somehow the link didn’t get populated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5hrTkrd1JI”
This is Dan Coutney’s critique of Dr. James Anderson’s view of Original Sin and the question of Why Adam sinned. No one, not even the Calvinist, says that the Scriptures tell us why Adam sinned, so all theories on this are speculative.
rhutchin
This is Dan Coutney’s critique of Dr. James Anderson’s view of Original Sin and the question of Why Adam sinned. No one, not even the Calvinist, says that the Scriptures tell us why Adam sinned, so all theories on this are speculative.
br.d
BING!
Theories and speculations presented without hesitation – YUP he’s following John Calvin’s example alright! :-]
Eric Kemp writes, “You keep assuming that God is pleased to determine all things. Why are you assuming that? ”
First we have the Psalm, “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” and “Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.”
What is covered by “whatever”? Paul in Ephesians, “God works all things after the counsel of His will” As a subset of this, in Romans, “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” The assumption is that Ephesians and Romans help us to understand the Psalms. To this,we can add a multitude of verses that also describe things that God has does or will do. That is a standard exegetical method. So, you need only discover one thing that God has not determined to cause us to see if we have misunderstood the point made first in the Psalms.and then reinforced elsewhere in the Scriptures.
Then, “…you make a logical deduction they mean “God does all things”, and then tell me the passage means “God does all things”. But the Bible never says that. ”
To say, “God works all things,” means the same as “God determines all things.” If we say that God does all things, then we recognize God’s rule over secondary forces. Thus, God determined that Christ should die and accomplished this through the Romans and Jews. You are free to offer an alternative rendering of “God works…”
Then, “I take the Scriptures to say God is doing the specific things it says He is doing. You’re adding things to the Scriptures that God does, namely, “all things”. And you expect not to have to defend that claim?”
The claim is, “God works all things after the counsel of His will.” The Greek is, “panta energountov,” and it can be translated as “works all” or “works all things.” I don’t see how I am adding, “all things,” to the Scriptures. However, if you want to argue that point, do so.
Then, “You’re getting salty about being asked the question?”
If I am getting “Salty” it is only because you claimed to be able to argue the point that God does not determine all things and have not lived up to your claim.
Hutch, “If I am getting “Salty” it is only because you claimed to be able to argue the point that God does not determine all things and have not lived up to your claim.”
Every new sentence you write commits an informal logical fallacy. This one is a moving the goalposts and a red herring. I was asking YOU to defend YOUR positive claim which you became incensed at being asked about.
“First we have the Psalm, “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” and “Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.””
This is a begging the question fallacy where you have already been asked, twice, how “does what he pleases” means “pleases to determine all things” and you have twice now ignored the question and re-asserted the question begging statement as if you’d never been asked about it.
“So, you need only discover one thing that God has not determined to cause us to see if we have misunderstood the point made first in the Psalms.and then reinforced elsewhere in the Scriptures.”
A single example of this, a theme found all over the Bible where God distances himself from the choices of his nation, “and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind”, Jer 19:5.
“To say, “God works all things,” means the same as “God determines all things.””
This is another begging the question. Things are not true just because you say they are, Hutch. In order to be doing exegesis, you would have to actually SHOW that “work” = “determined”, not just start by assuming your conclusion.
Further, it’s almost like you assume there were not any words in the Greek that Paul could have used to mean “determine” (hint: there are) but decided to use a decidedly un-deterministic word like “work” as if there is something outside of Himself that God is working with really not cause Paul likes to be confusing, apparently.
“The claim is, “God works all things after the counsel of His will.” The Greek is, “panta energountov,” and it can be translated as “works all” or “works all things.” I don’t see how I am adding, “all things,” to the Scriptures.”
This is being deliberately obtuse, cause I know full well you understood my point. Which is this; you are quoting passages that says “God does these sets of things specifically named”, particularly, “works in all things that happen for his purposes”. Yet you are claiming it means “God determines every thing that happens”. That’s simply not what it says and the only thing you can do is continue to beg the question that it does.
Wonderful assessment!!! Well done Eric!
indeed it is…but somehow it never seems to make a difference.
Logic and Scripture are on your side Eric but ……
FOH
Logic and Scripture are on your side Eric but ……
br.d
Right on FOH! Calvinists ignore logic – because of the human ego refuses to give up its thrown.
FOH writes:
“indeed it is…but somehow it never seems to make a difference.
Logic and Scripture are on your side Eric but ……”
. . . when you can ignore the actual statements of scripture and pretend like it says something else,
. . . when you can employ euphemisms so you can have your cake and eat it too,
. . . when you can bounce back and forth from one assertion to its polar opposite,
. . . when you can hold two irreconcilable beliefs at the same time,
. . . when you can adjust your definitions on demand,
. . . when you can make Calvinism mean whatever you want it to at the moment,
. . . it’s pretty hard to have a logical discussion.
The looking glass of Calvinist language
CALVINIST (i.e., Humpty Dumpty)
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
ALICE
“The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
CALVINIST (i.e., Humpty Dumpty)
“The question is, which is to be master—that’s all.”
One might just pin this quote, due to the constant use of word games present. Some appear to believe they can ignore all rules of logic, along with those of the English language, borrow the very words of scripture, then pull fabricated claims out of the magic hat. Such were the tactics of Humpty Dumpty, who brazenly refused to be restricted to commonly agreed upon meanings of words, upon which all meaningful communication is grounded. With such tools, one is always right, inventing new definitions or grabbing a euphemism to deny earlier, contradictory statements. Minus sound logic and consistent definitions, words have no meaning, turning the Word of God into a playground for deceivers.
Eric Kemp writes, “I was asking YOU to defend YOUR positive claim which you became incensed at being asked about. ”
Let’s rehears what went before:
rhutchin: “If you can legitimately take such Scripture to say that God does not determine all things, do so.””
Eric Kemp:”Sure, I can.
So, now you realize you have nothing and will focus on getting me to defend my position. That’s fine.
rhutchin: “First we have the Psalm, “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” and “Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.””
Eric Kemp: “This is a begging the question fallacy where you have already been asked, twice, how “does what he pleases” means “pleases to determine all things” and you have twice now ignored the question and re-asserted the question begging statement as if you’d never been asked about it. ”
We established that God does as He pleases. So, no issue there. Now, we cite Paul, “God works all things after the counsel of His will.” To say, “God works all things” is to say that God determines all things. To say “after the counsel of His will” is to say that God does as He pleases. Instead of begging the question, I accept the statement of the Psalms, “God does as He pleases,” I don’t see an issue with that. Your issue seems to be my association of the Psalms with Ephesians.
Then, “In order to be doing exegesis, you would have to actually SHOW that “work” = “determined”, not just start by assuming your conclusion.”
The translations have “works all things or everything,” (common trans), “accomplishes all things,” (NET), “makes everything work out.” (NLT), “does all things,” (BBE), “God always does what he plans,” (CEV), “All things are done according to God’s plan and decision;” (GNT), “who does everything that he wills to do,” (ISV), “which makes everything work the way he intends.'” (GOD’S WORD trans). If you don’t like the word, “determine,” then elt’s use the various translations that have been offered. I see no difference between the meaning given in those translations and “determine.”
Paul could have used a different Greek word, but chose to use a stronger term. The term, “ergon,” leaves no doubt that it is God who is the active agent bringing all things about. That God works all things tells us that God is responsible for all that happens.
Then, ‘you are quoting passages that says “God does these sets of things specifically named”, particularly, “works in all things that happen for his purposes”. Yet you are claiming it means “God determines every thing that happens”. That’s simply not what it says and the only thing you can do is continue to beg the question that it does. ”
This is no more than your personal opinion. You are presupposing a definition of “determine,” that you are hiding from us. I simply equate “determine” to “works” to say that God works all things,” means that “God determines all things.” Thus, if we say that God determines who is saved, we mean that God works out who is saved (according to the counsel of His will).
The verse is straightforward in establishing God’s involvement in all things and being the final arbiter of all that happens. You seem to have problems with this.
br.d
John Calvin created a PRIVATE definition for the term…..The STANDARDIZED definition is from the Latin: “permettere”
Defined as: To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
Prior to the Latin – we have the Greek άδεια which means “to give license.”
br.d
May 14, 2019 at 7:50 pm
A simple way to DECODE it is to simply replace the term with CAUSE/AUTHOR/RENDER-CERTAIN.
rhutchin
May 15, 2019 at 7:43 am
The non-Calvinists use “permit” in a different sense. Get them to use it correctly – in the manner you note.
rhutchin
May 15, 2019 at 1:48 pm
Calvinists use the standard definition.
br.d
This is easily shown to be FALSE
If TRUE – Calvin would not have not had to create a qualified form – which he called “mere” permission.
Calvin knew that nowhere in the STANDARDIZED language is “permitted” defined as CAUSED.
Take this proposition for example
“SOT101 permitted rhutchin to post comments”
It is totally fallacious to interpret this as SOT101 CAUSED rhutchin to post comments.
rhutchin
The verbs used to define “permettere” are action verbs, “God lets,” “God gives up,” God grants.” It puts God in charge meaning that God is the ACTIVE CAUSE; nothing is “permitted,” unless God decides to permit..
br.d
Its easy to see where this argument is fallacious
Everyone knows there is a difference between CAUSE and permit.
rhutchin
The non-Calvinist focuses on “allow” as if it carries a meaning of lesser involvement than the other terms. It doesn’t and you don’t even try to defend the non-Calvinist position.
br.d
FALSE
Its not a matter of focus – its a matter of STANDARDIZED definitions which become STANDARDIZED usage within language.
CONCLUSION:
Calvinists already have the word CAUSE – which they can use without producing deceptive equivocations.
Calvinists know how people use the term “permit” within STANDARDIZED language.
The reason Calvinists use “permit” in statements while they PRIVATELY mean CAUSE – is obvious.
It allows them to SNEAK in a camouflaged form of “mere” permission
br.d writes, “It is totally fallacious to interpret this as SOT101 CAUSED rhutchin to post comments.”
That’s because SOT101 is not God and does not give me life nor makes me in His image nor rules over me. At the same time, like God, SOT101 could prevent me posting comments.
br.d
It is totally fallacious to interpret this as SOT101 CAUSED rhutchin to post comments.”
rhutchin
That’s because SOT101 is not God and does not give me life nor makes me in His image nor rules over me. At the same time, like God, SOT101 could prevent me posting comments.
br.d
Thus confirming that the STANDARDIZED definition and usage of “permit” was never intended to represent (be defined) as CAUSE
John Calvin decided to NOT use the word “FATE” because of the baggage the word carries.
Its obvious that for Calvin the term “permit” also carries baggage – which Calvin called “odious” (i.e. repulsive).
He should have stopped using this word altogether – just like he stopped using the word “Fate”
Instead he created a PRIVATE definition for “permit” to make it mean CAUSE.
However no one adopts Calvinist definition – replacing the word CAUSE in sentences with the word “permit”.
Because doing so creates equivocation.
Therefore:
Defining “permit” to mean CAUSE is a PRIVATE practice – exclusive to Calvinism.
Thus it meets the criteria from being a PRIVATE interpretation.
rhutchin
This is what Calvinism says….etc
br.d
What Calvinism obfuscates is the important thing.
The language is designed to give it an acceptable appearance.
br.d writes, “John Calvin
-qoute
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it…”
rhutchin
I found a fuller citation to be, ““But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and THAT MEN CAN DELIBERATELY DO NOTHING UNLESS HE INSPIRE IT” It is cited from “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.
br.d
Good – I’m glad you found it.
I found the citation from within the book “Is God the Author of Sin?” by Timothy Zebell
Zebell lists the citation of Calvin’s statement as being on page 171-172 of “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God”
rhutchin
However, I have copies of that document and none of my searches turned up this passage. It sounds like something Calvin might write, but I think it has been divorced from context. Did br.d actually read this or was he just quote mining??
br.d
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand Calvin’s statement.
And the fact that Calvin contradicts himself in another statement – what else is new!
The primary characteristic of Calvinism is self-contradiction. :-]
Whenever I read Calvin’s Institutes, even when I was still in camp, I always got the impression that he was a wily, master of prevarication. He deliberately crafted his words to give himself plenty of wiggle room, and plausible deniability. Very untrustworthy.
TS00
Whenever I read Calvin’s Institutes, even when I was still in camp, I always got the impression that he was a wily, master of prevarication. He deliberately crafted his words to give himself plenty of wiggle room, and plausible deniability. Very untrustworthy.
br.d
Exactly!
Calvin was not a theologian by training – he was trained as a lawyer.
Remember the lawyer who tempted Jesus?
His strategy was to prevaricate on the meaning of the word “neighbor”.
John Calvin was just following that lawyers practice!
You are very astute to see all of the equivocations and weasel language in Calvinist writing.
They constantly evade telling the truth – the whole truth – and nothing but the truth.
And yes I agree – this makes Calvinist language untrustworthy.
But that is also their image of god.
He says one thing and secretly means the opposite.
br.d writes, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand Calvin’s statement.”
If, indeed, Calvin did say it. I did not find it in the document noted by Zebell. You, like an obedient sheep, just accept it and move on.
br.d
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand Calvin’s statement.”
rhutchin
If, indeed, Calvin did say it. I did not find it in the document noted by Zebell. You, like an obedient sheep, just accept it and move on.
br.d
Now that’s an excellent example of reverse attribution.
When you see me following Calvin – believing the THEOS determines everything in every part – and at the same time going about my office *AS-IF* that is false – then you’ll know I’m an obedient sheep accepting it and moving on.
Until then – I’m having fun watching Calvinists here to do that. :-]
br.d writes, “Now that’s an excellent example of reverse attribution. ”
Meaning that br.d has no idea whether Calvin said this as he just relies on what people tell him.
br.d
“Now that’s an excellent example of reverse attribution. ”
rhutchin
Meaning that br.d has no idea whether Calvin said this as he just relies on what people tell him.
br.d
Meaning you once again attributed something to me that is actually consistent with yourself. :-]
Now on the issue of Calvin’s quote – you said you looked in a document.
That’s not the same thing as a book sold by an official publisher.
If you like, you could email the document you have to Brain – and he can email it to me.
Then I can find out the authenticity of that document
And if its authentic – I can also perform a thorough search.
I am able to verify the quote from looking at an online copy of the book.
Calvin’s statement starts as the last sentence on page 175.
And the sentence carries over to the top of page 176.
You may want to verify the document you have is authentic.
br.d writes, “I am able to verify the quote from looking at an online copy of the book.”
So, how about a website?.
Look on the top of page 176 for the ending of the statement.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Cpf6sWdobC0C&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=The+hand+of+God+rules+the+interior+affections&source=bl&ots=TJzS_J_GYP&sig=ACfU3U2Uxh-kCz9MMPaK9LTnMYmsnbyNJA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIr_LllpviAhVmTt8KHbHhBDkQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=snippet&q=in%20their%20hearts%20to%20make%20them&f=false
The bottom of page 175 for the beginning of it.
br.d writes, “If you like, you could email the document you have to Brain – and he can email it to me.”
I bought the book in the kindle edition off Amazon. All I need is the kindle location for the citation. on some key words on paragraphs around the citation.
Sorry to say – I think Kindle page numbering is going to be way different. You’re limited to the kindle keyword search feature.
br.d writes, “Sorry to say – I think Kindle page numbering is going to be way different. You’re limited to the kindle keyword search feature.”
Exactly. So, give me some key words or phrases in surrounding paragraphs to help me get close.
I posted the link for page 176
Its in google books
You should be able to find it easy enough.
Again – the statement starts at the bottom of page 175 and is carried over to page 176
Here is br.d’s reference citation from https://authorofsin.pressbooks.com/chapter/in-the-words-of-john-calvin/#return-footnote-28-16:
“But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and THAT MEN CAN DELIBERATELY DO NOTHING UNLESS HE INSPIRE IT”
br.d wrote, “Look on the top of page 176 for the ending of the statement.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Cpf6sWdobC0C&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=The+hand+of+God+rules+the+interior+affections&source=bl&ots=TJzS_J_GYP&sig=ACfU3U2Uxh-kCz9MMPaK9LTnMYmsnbyNJA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIr_LllpviAhVmTt8KHbHhBDkQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=snippet&q=in%20their%20hearts%20to%20make%20them&f=false
The bottom of page 175 for the beginning of it.”
I did not find the cited statement in the book linked by br.d. The last sentence on pg 175 begins, “The hand of God rules the interior affections no less that it superintends exterior affections; nor would God have effected by the hand…”
And continuing on to pg 176
“…of man that He decreed, unless he worked in the hearts to make them will before they acted.”
Apparently, br.d cannot read if he makes such a gross error. The citation he employs to denigrate Calvin [“John Calvin -qoute “Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it…”] is not valid from what I can see. It seems to be much ado about nothing. So much for br.d’s scholarship.
rhutchin
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it…”] is not valid from what I can see. It seems to be much ado about nothing. So much for br.d’s scholarship.
br.d
One can’t find something
And he thus auto-magically assumes that inability must be attributed to someone other than himself
Again with the reverse attribution!
Not only did I find this quote in the google book online – but author Timothy Zebell in his book “is god the author of sin” also found it.
It is referenced on the website Theology in Tension.com
It is referenced on the website “Safeguardyoursoul.com”
it is referenced on the website “bjorkbloggen.com”
They say most people learn something after the 3rd time.
I wonder how many times one’s reverse attribution must manifest – before one learns from it! :-]
nr.d writes, “Not only did I find this quote in the google book online…”
How about a link to that quote from Calvin? The link you provided did not have that quote, at least not on page 175-176. There is a statement there that is somewhat like the quote you use, but your quote, regardless who attests to it (as non-Calvinists can spread false quotes), may only have been an attempt to paraphrase Calvin (and not very well).
If you actually found the quote you have been using, how about a true link to that quote. Show us that your scholarship is accurate.
rhutchin
If you actually found the quote you have been using, how about a true link to that quote. Show us that your scholarship is accurate.
br.d
You are too funny!
Step 1 (open up google web-site)
Step 2 (Enter the following text string “john calvin,men deliberately do nothing unless he inspire it”)
Step 3 (Review all web-references looking for search text string shown in bold)
Step 4 (Right-click on google link to web-site and choose “OPEN IN NEW TAB”
Step 5 (Open the web-page and search for the word “INSPIRE”)
Step 6 (Verify the statement and its reference)
Note:
In 5 minutes – I found around 6 web–pages listing this statement and its reference to John Calvin
Give it a try – it will boost your scholarship! :-]
br.d originally quoted Calvin to say, “Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it…” I challenged that. So–
br.d
You are too funny!
Step 1 (open up google web-site)
Step 2 (Enter the following text string “john calvin,men deliberately do nothing unless he inspire it”)
Step 3 (Review all web-references looking for search text string shown in bold)
Step 4 (Right-click on google link to web-site and choose “OPEN IN NEW TAB”
Step 5 (Open the web-page and search for the word “INSPIRE”)
Step 6 (Verify the statement and its reference)
Note:
In 5 minutes – I found around 6 web–pages listing this statement and its reference to John Calvin.
I followed br.d’s instructions and I did not find that quote in any of Calvin’s writings. br.d claims he saw it.
We need a third party to go through br.d’s procedure and find the quotation from Calvin, the document in which it appears and the page number. br.d provided such earlier and I followed his link and did not see the phrase under discussion. Can anyone else find it and substantiate br.d’s claim?
Try “man what he decreed” or “make them will”
rhutchin: “as the Calvinist asks, “Why are not all persuaded?”
FOH: “Some are persuaded to something and others are not. It aint rocket science.”
Then FOH: “When Calvinists throw up the smoke screen requiring you to somehow tell them why some believe (or are persuaded) and some aren’t…. just go to the Bible.”
Once again, we see that FOH purposely avoids giving an answer. Maybe, because he knows that God determines why one is persuaded and another is not and he does not want to admit it.
So, FOH obfuscates and says, “So sometimes…. serving the Lord (or being persuaded, reasoned with, or convinced: all Paul’s words) seems desirable….. but sometime people see it and desire something else.” He gets close when he says, “The Bible is full of examples where God even works with people to bring them along in their choices (not just presto give them faith).” But then he retreats saying, “Remember Christ did the same ….. He performed many miracles to help people along…… ”
Why can’t FOH give a straight answer to a simple question??
heather writes, “Your example doesn’t address the idea of how we get faith….But the Bible clearly shows that faith comes through hearing the Word and believing.”
We agree, No need to mention the obvious.
Then, ” If you say that God has to provide the faith (for the elect), then you are right back to God condemning the unelect for something they had no control over. ”
You are correct as Paul demonstrates, “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
rhutchin
You are correct…..etc
br.d
In other words Calvin’s god does NOT permit the creature to obey.
And then condemns the creature for NOT obeying.
And Calvinists want to call their twisted justice Biblical.
br.d writes, “In other words Calvin’s god does NOT permit the creature to obey.
And then condemns the creature for NOT obeying.”
God gives people the freedom to obey if that is their desire. God does not force a person to disobey. That a person is condemned for his disobedience is because he disobeyed of his own volition. “…the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” “Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”
br.d
In other words Calvin’s god does NOT permit the creature to obey.
And then condemns the creature for NOT obeying.”
rhutcnin
God gives people the freedom to obey if that is their desire.
br.d
Calvinists know how to tell the truth up to a point – but a like by omission is still a lie
ALL creaturely attributes Calvinists want to point to – are ALL determined by factors outside the creatures control.
rhutcnin
God does not force a person to disobey.
br.d
No one here is fooled by that trick either.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s decrees have no force. :-]
rhutcnin
That a person is condemned for his disobedience is because he disobeyed of his own volition
br.d
Calvinists know how to tell the truth up to a point – but a like by omission is still a lie
ALL creaturely attributes Calvinists want to point to – are ALL determined by factors outside the creatures control.
CONCLUSION:
Calvin’s god does NOT permit the creature to obey.
And then condemns the creature for NOT obeying.
And Calvinists want to superimpose their ideas of twisted justice into the narrative of scripture
CONCLUSION:
br.d writes, “ALL creaturely attributes Calvinists want to point to – are ALL determined by factors outside the creatures control.”
So, what attribute was not determined by factors outside the creatures control?
Then, “Calvin’s god does NOT permit the creature to obey.”
God normally does not restrain a person doing that which he desires. If a person wants to obey God, he can choose to obey.
br.d
ALL creaturely attributes Calvinists want to point to – are ALL determined by factors outside the creatures control.”
rhutchin
So, what attribute was not determined by factors outside the creatures control?
br.d
Elementary Math:
Take ALL and subtract ALL and how much do you have left over :-]
rhutchin
God normally does not restrain a person doing that which he desires.
br.d
No one here is fooled by those language tricks
Your last “restrain” statement is: – Calvin’s god restrains events already restrained.
Calvin’s god CAN’T restrain anything he RENDERS-CERTAIN
And anything NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN is not going to come to pass – so nothing to be restrained.
I Wonder why Calvinists love to chase their own tails all the time. :-]
rhutchin
If a person wants to obey God he can choose to obey.
br.d
Calvinists tell the truth – but only up to a point
But a lie by omission is still a lie.
ALL attributes (which includes wants) are controlled by Calvin’s god.
As Calvinist Paul Helm’s says about it:
-quote
Every twist and turn of each of these is under the direct control of god
So everyone here already sees through those deceptive statements.
br.d: ALL creaturely attributes Calvinists want to point to – are ALL determined by factors outside the creatures control.”
Then: Take ALL and subtract ALL and how much do you have left over :-]
You agree with the Calvinists that “ALL creaturely attributes…determined by factors outside the creatures control.”
br.d
ALL creaturely attributes Calvinists want to point to – are ALL determined by factors outside the creatures control.”
Then: Take ALL and subtract ALL and how much do you have left over :-]
rhutchin
You agree with the Calvinists that “ALL creaturely attributes…determined by factors outside the creatures control.”
br.d
Calvinists are double-minded, evasive and dishonest on this point as on others.
.
You for example – In one post – evade trying to point Attribute-A as the CAUSE of Attribute-B
And your next post – you try to point Attribute-B as the CAUSE of Attribute-A
Your silly WHACK A MOLE game with creaturely attributes. :-]
All to evade – Calvin’s god as the TRUE CAUSE/AUTHOR
Calvinists are ensnared by their own dishonesty
We have to ask ourselves why God says so many time things like “I did this so that men might know that I am…..” or when John says “Christ did these miracles the we might believe…”
If faith was just a given-not-given thing, these kind of “I’m giving you proof” sentences are meaningless.
Gideon: God could have (and in Calvinism would have) just given him faith —- no questions asked, irresistibly. But….nah…. God works with feeble Gideon to give him the signs he need (not imputes some given-faith). Many long scenes in the Bible just like this indicate that God does not just infuse an irresistible faith.
Zechariah asks how can this be true? Bummer. Mute for 9 months. Why didn’t God just give him faith?
———–
1 Samuel 14:10
“But if they say, ‘Come up to us,’ then we will go up, for the LORD has given them into our hands; and this shall be the sign to us.”
God could have just given Jonathan faith but in stead He goes along with the sign idea of Jonathan.
———
Exodus 4:1-9
“Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.'” The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” And he said, “A staff.” Then He said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent;”
God could have just given Moses faith…. but nah…. He gives him signs to help his feeble decision-making.
—-
Joshua 24:17
“For the LORD our God is He who brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and who did these great signs in our sight and preserved us through all the way in which we went and among all the peoples through whose midst we passed.”
Notice that Joshua does not say “The Lord who gave us faith….” No he says ….. He did great signs….in our sight!!!! That is not given-faith. That is like Paul “persuading men.”
These were God’s “chosen people” with signs and miracles and even they did not believe …all the time. Back and forth they went. If that was the faith God “gave” them, it sure was not very efficacious!
———–
Numbers 16:28-30
“Moses said, “By this you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these deeds; for this is not my doing. “If these men die the death of all men or if they suffer the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me.”
God could have just “given them faith” but nope….. He gave them sign…. and they had to make a choice. Over and over and over.
FOH writes, “We have to ask ourselves why God says so many time things like “I did this so that men might know that I am…..” or when John says “Christ did these miracles the we might believe…”
God does these things to persuade people. So, we have to ask again, “Why are not all people persuaded?” FOH can’t seem to answer this even though he said that the answer is not rocket science. (suggesting that the answer was really simple).
FOH
We have to ask ourselves why God says so many time things like “I did this so that men might know that I am…..” or when John says “Christ did these miracles the we might believe…”
rhutchin
God does these things to persuade people.
br.d
Calvin’s god does “things” to persuade people *AS-IF* he “merely” permits “things” to persuade people.
Calvinists and their “fully orbed” system of double-speak – what a hoot! :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god does “things” to persuade people *AS-IF* he “merely” permits “things” to persuade people.”
God’s elect are persuaded as-if God knew that they would be persuaded. The reprobate are not persuaded, because God offers no direct help (regeneration) to such persuasion as He does for His elect.
br.d
Calvin’s god does “things” to persuade people *AS-IF* he “merely” permits “things” to persuade people.”
rhutchin
God’s elect are persuaded *AS-IF* God knew that they would be persuaded.
br.d
And you think you are a rational thinker!
Too funny! :-]
I suspect this was another attempt to SNEAK in a camouflaged form of foreknowledge via observation.
rhutchin
The reprobate are not persuaded, because God offers no direct help (regeneration) to such persuasion as He does for His elect.
br.d
OOOOH! The super religious jargon! :-]
I just cut to the chase – and acknowledge Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse.
Trying to call that process “persuasion” is simply an attempt to SNEAK in “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.
But I get that doing that SNEAKING those things in – is necessary for the Calvinist to appear biblical! :-]
CALVINISM’S PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF “PERMISSION” LANGUAGE
rhutchin
May 14, 2019 at 10:20 am
[Calvinists] boldly reject “mere” permission”
That is because God is sovereign and necessarily rules His creation.
rhutchin
May 14, 2019 at 2:06 pm
God initiates some actions…….and for want of a better term, permits, other actions.
br.d
May 14, 2019 at 7:50 pm
Its not hard to see how deceptive Calvinists can get with their use of “permission” language.
A simple way to DECODE it is to simply replace the term with CAUSE/AUTHOR/RENDER-CERTAIN.”
rhutchin
May 15, 2019 at 7:43 am
The non-Calvinists use “permit” in a different sense. Get them to use it correctly – in the manner you note.
br.d
The STANDARDIZED definition is from the Latin: “permettere”
Defined as: To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
Prior to the Latin – we have the Greek άδεια which means “to give license”
Equivocation is a logical fallacy that relies on *IMPLICILTY* alternating between the different meanings a single word can have.
Paul: “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?”.
Jesus: “Let your communications be yea yea or nay nay – for anything else comes of evil”.
br.d
“It is totally fallacious to interpret this as SOT101 CAUSED rhutchin to post comments.”
rhutchin
That’s because SOT101 is not God and does not give me life nor makes me in His image nor rules over me.
br.d
And this is where Calvinism’s PRIVATE definition for the term “permit” comes from – based upon their EXCLUSIVE doctrine.
But that doctrine is EXCLUSIVE to – and found ONLY in Calvinism
And that is what makes it a PRIVATE interpretation.
rhutchin
At the same time, like God, SOT101 could prevent me posting comments.
br.d
Now see how the Calvinist needs to SNEAK in a camouflaged form of Libertarian Free will
In a Libertarian Free world there is no LOGICAL conundrum with the THEOS preventing an event.
But its a LOGIC IMPOSSIBILITY for Calvin’s god to alter/change/prevent an event that he has made IMMUTABLE.
The only event he can alter/change/prevent is one that is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass.
And that event wasn’t ever going to come to pass in the first place – and thus nothing to alter/change/prevent
The Calvinist obviously needs some form of Libertarian Free will – to APPEAR biblical. :-]
LEARNING CALVINIST TALKING-POINTS IN THE PRISON CELL OF THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM
In the prison cell of Theological Determinism – prisoners learn Calvinist talking-points.
Here are just a few:
1) God did not force or coerce you to be here – you’re just not permitted to be anywhere else.
2) You’re free to go anywhere you desire – you’re just not permitted to desire anything else.
3) You’re here because of your attributes – you’re just not permitted any other attributes.
4) You believe it true – the THEOS is the ORIGIN and CAUSE – but live and speak AS-IF it is false.
br.d writes, “In the prison cell of Theological Determinism – prisoners learn Calvinist talking-points.
Here are just a few:
1) God did not force or coerce you to be here – you’re just not permitted to be anywhere else.
2) You’re free to go anywhere you desire – you’re just not permitted to desire anything else.
3) You’re here because of your attributes – you’re just not permitted any other attributes.
4) You believe it true – the THEOS is the ORIGIN and CAUSE – but live and speak AS-IF it is false.”
1. God does ordain the time and place of a person’s birth and this without consulting the person.
2. God gives a person freedom to be anything or go anywhere consistent with the person’s desires.
3. You live because God gave you life and sustains your life from day to day. God creates a person with specific attributes (people do not have wings; not all are Einsteins). Some things just cannot be changed – as Jeremiah argued, ““Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.”
4. People know the truth but have been deceived to believe a lie. Thus, Romans 1, “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
rhutchin writes:
“People know the truth but have been deceived to believe a lie.”
Once again, utterly inconsistent and logically impossible. If one ‘knows the truth’ one cannot be ‘deceived to believe a lie’. Being deceived to believe a lie is the same as not knowing what is true. But of course the Calvinist seeks to avoid any mention of the free choice man here makes to embrace a lie. It is very tempting to point to the quoted statement as a clear example of this.
The real premise of Romans 1 – I am amazed any Calvinist would dare to quote such a blatant discounting of his own theology – is that man knows the truth and deliberately chooses to ignore it. He lives as if the lie is true, but he knows that it is not. This is the only reason scripture can affirm that he is without excuse. Were he deceived, as for example Eve was, he would be without blame. But knowing wrong, and pursuing it anyway, as Adam did, is sin.
Man only becomes hopelessly deceived, and totally depraved upon repeatedly ignoring the truth, as revealed by the Spirit of Truth, and determinedly embracing its opposite. Eventually the Spirit of Truth will no longer even be heard, and God will abandon him to his obstinate choice to resist the Truth. Such a person is capable of the most heinous evil, as his conscience is completely seared, and truth can no longer enter into his decisions.
TS00 writes, ‘The real premise of Romans 1… is that man knows the truth and deliberately chooses to ignore it.”
Romans 1 deals with those who “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” It further says, ‘even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Then, “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” Where did this “lie” come from and what basis would they have for believing a lie over the truth. It is Satan who, “is a liar, and the father of lies.” We know that, “Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” You say that man does all that is described in Romans 1 on his own. I say he has help – Satan, the father of the lie that people believe.
Then, ‘Were he deceived, as for example Eve was, he would be without blame. ”
Eve was innocent and did not have a sin nature. The people described in Romans 1 have a sin nature and are not innocent – they are wicked. They are living a lie as they – “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” of the sin nature. They are everything Romans 3 describes them to be.
Then, ‘Man only becomes hopelessly deceived, and totally depraved upon repeatedly ignoring the truth,”
In Ephesians 2, Paul describes what believers were before God quickened them, “you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” Then he says, “I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;”
It is because man is hopelessly deceived, and totally depraved that he ignores the truth.
Rhutchin quotes Romans 1, then again ignores, or utterly twists, what it says.
But let’s not pick and choose selectively. Read the entire passage, which makes it even more obvious:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
None of these verses, in any way, shape or form suggest that the depraved people described are deceived. Indeed, it states the exact opposite specifically, repeatedly, I have pointed this out to this commenter multiple times, so it is not as if this is new territory. Let’s just list a few of the descriptions that prove without question that this passage is not talking about deceived men:
by their wickedness suppress the truth
For what can be known about God is plain to them
his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived
So they are without excuse, for . . . they knew God
they exchanged the truth about God for a lie
Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die
None of these phrases describe a person who is deceived, contrary to Calvinism’s major premise of God-cursed Total Depravity. People are not totally depraved because they are cursed by God and unable to discern truth, but because they reject and suppress the truth that God has made clear to them. They open themselves up to increasing error and darkness of the soul because they suppress the truth that they know. And eventually, the God who respects the free choices of men, abandons them to their chosen folly.
I have rarely seen such blatant twisting of words. One might justly call it exchanging the truth for a lie.
TS00 writes, “None of these verses, in any way, shape or form suggest that the depraved people described are deceived.”
v25 says, “…they exchanged the truth of God for a lie…” If one exchanges the truth for a lie, he has been deceived. It is very easy to deceive a depraved person because he wants to believe a lie. For depraved people, “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them….” so what happened? We see that “their foolish heart was darkened.,,,” Darkened by what? To think that depraved people are not deceived is naive in my opinion.
Someone ignored everything I spelled out in my former comment. Being deceived and deliberately suppressing what one knows is true are two distinctly, incompatible events. When one is deceived, they are led to believe something is true which is not. When one knows the truth and suppresses it, that is an entirely different concept.
TS00 writes, “Being deceived and deliberately suppressing what one knows is true are two distinctly, incompatible events.”
I agree. My point is that being deceived can precipitate one’s suppressing the truth. Absent a deception, what reason would a person have for suppressing the truth?
Then, ‘When one is deceived, they are led to believe something is true which is not. When one knows the truth and suppresses it, that is an entirely different concept.”
Agreed. However, in order to suppress one truth, one must think there is a greater truth that takes precedence. This opens the door for deception.
br.d
In the prison cell of Theological Determinism – prisoners learn Calvinist talking-points.
Here are just a few:
1) God did not force or coerce you to be here – you’re just not permitted to be anywhere else.
2) You’re free to go anywhere you desire – you’re just not permitted to desire anything else.
3) You’re here because of your attributes – you’re just not permitted any other attributes.
4) You believe it true – the THEOS is the ORIGIN and CAUSE – but live and speak AS-IF it is false.
rhutchin
1. God does ordain …….etc.
2. God gives a person freedom to be anything or go anywhere consistent with the person’s desires.
3. You live because God gave you life….etc
br.d
Thank you for providing further examples of the Calvinist talking-points
Especially (4) :-]
Calvinism declares that God alone is the sovereign determining force in whatsoever comes to pass in his creation. Leighton’s post says it succinctly. All of the deflections to ‘desires’ or secondary means are just attempts to avoid confronting the legitimate charge of the injustice of the Calvinist scheme. It is this indisputable injustice that always dooms Calvinism in the court of public opinion. Hence the dissimulation, hedging and not quite forthright explanations one nearly always encounters when interacting with Calvinists.
Calvin well knew what the response would be to his proposal of predestination, which inevitably entails a horrible decree of reprobation. There is no escape from this horrible decree, in more ways than one. Let us hear it from the horse’s mouth, as found in Calvin’s Institutes:
“If such a barren invention is accepted [that Adam sinned because he had free choice], where will the omnipotence of God be whereby he regulates all things according to his secret plan, which depends solely upon itself? Yet predestination, whether they [the objectors] will [admit it] or not, manifests itself in Adam’s posterity. For it did not take place by reason of nature that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation . . . . Scripture proclaims that all mortals were bound over to eternal death in the person of one man [Adam] (cf. Rom. 5:12 ff.). Since this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the wonderful plan of God . . . . Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? . . . The decree is horrible indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree . . . . And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision. For it pertains to his wisdom to foreknow everything that is to happen, so it pertains to his might to rule and control everything by his hand.”
If you call yourself a Calvinist, read these words again and again until you grasp their meaning. There is little leeway in understanding Calvin, nor is it possible to excise any of his more unpalatable teachings, as all are essential for the system of Divine Determinism to stand. If God unconditionally chooses who will be saved, based on nothing to do with the individuals themselves, then it is unavoidably true that he also unconditionally chooses who will be damned, based on nothing to do with the individuals themselves.
Much as Calvinists try to sneak it in, one simply cannot blame a man’s damnation upon his own choices. God has chosen who he will save and who he will not, and so it will unchangeably be. All intervening events, all desires, choices or sins are simply secondary means determined by God to bring forth his ordained end. No man, woman or child ever can or will do anything apart from the predetermining decree of God. There is no avoiding this conclusion. And yet, when confronted with these facts by opponents, Calvinist after Calvinist dances around the truth, desperately afraid to admit what cannot be denied.
One can engage in disputable debates over minute details all day long, but it does not change the most pertinent facts. Under Calvinism, God, and God alone, has determined, in eternity past, who shall be saved. There is nothing anyone can do or not do to effect or change these predeterminations. It is pure foolishness to pretend that there is any good news gospel for those whom God has not chosen to save. It is a lie to assert that Calvinism allows that Jesus provided atonement for all men, when Calvinistic predestination demands that all whom Jesus died for will unfailingly be saved, and all others will unfailingly be damned. No one is damned due to sin, but sins due to being damned.
You want to believe such things? It is your choice to do so, but do not kid yourself that Calvinism means anything less than what is here stated. Nothing has ever shaken me to the core like realizing that spiritual leaders I once trusted had played me for a fool.
Instead of laying out and discussing the clear meaning of Calvinistic predestination, word games were employed and salient truth denied. The only point of creating a theory called ‘compatibilism’ is to hide the hideous truth, and to appear to align with the thousands of scriptures that portray God’s love for all, his offer of grace to all and his stated desire that none perish. None of these earnest calls to repent can have any genuine meaning under Divine Determinism, but dissimulation and deflection work well to refocus attention elsewhere.
Choose you this day, dear believer, which God you will serve. The God of Calvinism controls all things, determines the fate of all before they come into being, then pretends that his predetermined reprobation is ‘punishment’ for the very sin he irrevocably cursed men with. You may try and line this cruel, sadistic God up with the loving gracious God of scripture, but there is no similarity.
Calvinist teachers will tell you, as they told me, that you can have it both ways. You can, they will tell you, believe that God alone predetermines and brings into being whatsoever comes to pass, and at the same time place the blame for sin and death on the individual. This is, however, as illogical and absurd as it first sounds. If God alone deserves the glory for whatsoever is good, God alone deserves the blame for whatsoever is bad.
And when you are told, in response to your misgivings, that you MUST believe these horrible things about God because scripture asserts them, I say to you, you have the right to answer back, ‘Actually sir, that is simply one interpretation of certain verses. There are others, which I choose to look at for myself.’ This is the key to not being bullied into buying a package of goods you do not really like or need.
The good news, my friend, is that the revelation of God to man really is good news. He truly loves you, and all men, in exactly the same way – unfailingly. His offer of forgiveness, grace and eternal life is genuine, and freely available to whosoever will believe it. All that he has done, from the very start, is for our good, that we might have life and have it more abundantly.
Wouldn’t it be truly good news to know that the promised blessings of God are not limited to a select few? Wouldn’t it be truly good news to be able to tell everyone you meet that God loves them and desires to bestow upon them immeasurable gifts of love? Wouldn’t it be truly good news to never again have to securely lock away all thoughts of the cruelty of a God who creates men without even a chance to be free from sin and death?
There is really only one thing one must give up in rejecting Calvinism, and that is the freedom to sin without accountability. Some will scoff, but that is the sole distinguishing benefit of Calvinism and the only reason to cling to such a hideous theology. It falsely assures men that their sins will not come into play, that their future is set, and that nothing they ever do or don’t do can threaten their eternal security.
So there is that. You will have to put your trust in the goodness, mercy and faithfulness of God, rather than in some secret, irreversible decree, some Judaistic covenant that cannot be challenged. But I am here to tell you that he is more than worthy of your trust. He is love and goodness and truth and beauty and all that is worth living for. He is a God you can delight in without reservation, who truly desires and seeks your good. He is glorious because he is good, rather than a narcissist in perpetual need of receiving involuntary ‘glory’.
Wow TS00,
You nailed that succinctly and passionately!
I will quote you often!
I will add one thing to the following:
“One can engage in disputable debates over minute details all day long, but it does not change the most pertinent facts. Under Calvinism, God, and God alone, has determined, in eternity past, who shall be saved.”
I would simply add this (since you did say “facts”)
One can engage in disputable debates over minute details all day long, but it does not change the most pertinent facts: Under Calvinism, God, and God alone, has determined, in eternity past, who shall be saved. God, and God alone, has determined immutably, in eternity past, every action, sin, or thought, good or bad, that any person has ever done or had.
On another string of this blog I provided the systematic theology quote from Grudem that says that He has done this and nothing we can say or do will change it.
Not caused by nature – but by Calvin’s god’s will.
It is a barren invention…that Adam sinned because he had free choice.
But we already know that Calvinists have a desperate need to find a way to get around these.
Just for a laugh . . . https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/predestination_postcard.jpg
TS00 writes, “If God unconditionally chooses who will be saved, based on nothing to do with the individuals themselves, then t is unavoidably true that he also unconditionally chooses who will be damned, based on nothing to do with the individuals themselves.”
As Romans 9 affirms. “Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:not by works but by him who calls–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated….So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy….So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires….”
Then, “Calvinist teachers will tell you…You can…believe that God alone predetermines and brings into being whatsoever comes to pass, and at the same time place the blame for sin and death on the individual.”
As Isaiah 10 affirms, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy, And to cut off many nations…So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.” For he has said, “By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples, And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants,..Therefore the Lord, the GOD of hosts, will send a wasting disease among his stout warriors; And under his glory a fire will be kindled like a burning flame.”
In response to some questions in the comments…
Why aren’t some people persuaded by the Gospel?
Because they don’t want to be.
And does saying that people can make a choice about Him mean that whether we have faith or not is outside of His decree (i.e. His control, His Will)?
No. It simply means that He has decreed to give us the right to make decisions, to choose Him or reject Him. We have a right to make decisions because He gave us the right to make decisions, even about Him. If we choose Him, it’s because He made it possible. If we don’t, it’s because He allows us to reject Him.
Would a Calvinist say that a sovereign God can’t give us the ability to make choices, if He wanted to? That He can’t work people’s choices into His plans? Is He not big enough, wise enough, or sovereign enough to do that?
Heather writes, ‘Why aren’t some people persuaded by the Gospel?
Because they don’t want to be.”
That’s what the Calvinist says.
Then, ” If we choose Him, it’s because He made it possible. If we don’t, it’s because He allows us to reject Him.”
That’s what the Calvinist says.
Then, “Would a Calvinist say that a sovereign God can’t give us the ability to make choices if He wanted to? , ”
No.
Then, “That He can’t work people’s choices into His plans? Is He not big enough, wise enough, or sovereign enough to do that?”
No and Yes.
Heather ‘Why aren’t some people persuaded by the Gospel?
Because they don’t want to be.”
rhutchin
That’s what the Calvinist says.
br.d
And what the Calvinist hides is that that occurs after Calvin’s god AUTHORS every neurological impulse – and no autonomous thoughts are permitted! :-]
Heather
If we choose Him, it’s because He made it possible. If we don’t, it’s because He allows us to reject Him.”
rhutchin
That’s what the Calvinist says.
br.d
And what the Calvinist hides is that that occurs after Calvin’s god AUTHORS every neurological impulse – – and no autonomous choices are permitted! :-]
Heather
Would a Calvinist say that a sovereign God can’t give us the ability to make choices if He wanted to? , ”
rhutchin
No.
br.d
With the tinny little caveat – that ability is determined for them by Calvin’s god – and no autonomous ability is permitted.
Heather
“That He can’t work people’s choices into His plans? Is He not big enough, wise enough, or sovereign enough to do that?”
rhutchin
No and Yes.
br.d
Non-Calvinist version:
The eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. A.W. Tozer
Calvinist version
They can do nothing unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE* them will before they act. (John Calvin Concerning the eternal predestination pg 175)
Heather
“If we choose Him, it’s because He made it possible. If we don’t, it’s because He allows us to reject Him.”
rhutchin
“That’s what the Calvinist says.”
Perhaps the Calvinist might say this, but it is not so according to his official theology. Note the distinctions:
Non-Calvinism:
If we choose Him, it’s because He made it possible, sending his Son to manifest and make known his love and mercy to lost sinners. If we don’t, it’s because He allows us to reject Him and his genuine offer of pardon and eternal life.
Calvinism:
If we choose him, it’s because He made it possible, by the mystical, unsought work of the Holy Spirit who regenerates the elect sinner making him newly able to desire and choose to believe in God’s salvation, which was effectively, and only, worked for those chosen by God to irresistibly receive it. If we don’t, it’s because we are reprobates, rejected by God and slated for eternal damnation in eternity past, cursed for the sin of our father, before we were ever born or able to do right or wrong, and made permanently unable to believe in or choose God.
You might notice a slight, ahem, difference, even if Calvinists deceptively use the wording of non-Calvinists in order to mislead unwary believers.
TS00
Even if Calvinists deceptively use the wording of non-Calvinists in order to mislead unwary believers.
br.d
You hit the bulls-eye again TS00!
And the reason they do – is because they intuitively know – in order to be one with scripture – they desperately need the very things their system forces them to reject.
br.d writes, “And what the Calvinist hides is that that occurs after Calvin’s god AUTHORS every neurological impulse…”
Yes. God created each person, weaving each on into a distinct individual. God gives each person knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. God directs each perosn’s steps and knows all the circumstances of their lives. God knows each person’s desires even before those desires come into the person’s mind. God knows the thoughts of each person before any think them. God ordains all that a peroson does without forcing them to act in one way or another and total knowledge of the choices a person makes before he chooses them.
Then, “– and no autonomous thoughts are permitted! ”
No person will think any thought that God does not know beforehand he will think and even ordained that he think the thought.
Then, ‘With the tinny little caveat – that ability is determined for them by Calvin’s god – and no autonomous ability is permitted.”
God creates some to be Einstein’s; others to be idiots and everyone in between. Some people have perfect memories; others not. Some understand complex issues easily; others not so. Some are given experiences that make them great; others not so. God makes all peopel, directs their steps, and protects or not. All this is done within God’s eternal plan that encompasses the movement of every atom from the beginning to the end. All this is done with people who want to do what they want and have no desire for the things of God.
Then, “Calvinist version: They can do nothing unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE* them will before they act.”
It si God who gives knowledge understanding, and wisdom. It is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God;s plan. No evil desire arises form man’s evil nature unless God says it will. God places trials and tribulations before people, allows Satan to tempt them, surrounds them with evil company or bad advisors all to “make” them do His will.
rhutchin writes:
“It is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God;s plan. No evil desire arises form man’s evil nature unless God says it will.”
I can only call such what it is: ‘Blasphemy’. God has never created a sin nature, has not prevented men from desiring and doing well, and has never ordained a single evil desire, thought or deed. A person who dares make such accusations against God, who is the very essence of goodness, love and justice should tremble at the thought of one day standing before him. I tremble for them.
TS00 writes, “God has never created a sin nature, has not prevented men from desiring and doing well, and has never ordained a single evil desire, thought or deed.”
When Adam sinned, he incurred a corrupted nature that was then inherited by his descendants. Paul describes this to believers in Ephesians 2, “you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” In Galatians, Paul says this, ‘the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” God knew all this when he opened the womb to the conception and birth of evil people. Adam’s sin led to the corruption of everyone who would be born because that was the punishment for his sin. Adam’s descendants would be just like him and not one was born except by God’s decree and not one person lives another day except by God’s decree. It is all according to God’s plan.
rhutchin
When Adam sinned, he incurred a corrupted nature that was then inherited by his descendants.
br.d
Dr. James N. Anderson, of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC, – “Calvinism and the first sin”
-quote:
Calinists can affirm a sufficient…explanation for Adam’s sin: God decreed it.
br.d writes, “Dr. James N. Anderson, of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC, – “Calvinism and the first sin”
-quote:Calinists can affirm a sufficient…explanation for Adam’s sin: God decreed it.”
Yes. Had God not decreed it, Satan could not have entered the garden, Eve could not have been tempted to eat the fruit and would not have offered the fruit to Adam, and Adam would not have eaten the fruit. It all begins with God’s decree.
rhutchin
Had God not decreed it, Satan could not have entered the garden, Eve could not have been tempted to eat the fruit and would not have offered the fruit to Adam, and Adam would not have eaten the fruit. It all begins with God’s decree.
br.d
All that religious blather!
I just cut to the chase – Calvin’s god AUTHORS every neurological impulse!
A nice little world of people functioning as robots :-]
br.d
And what the Calvinist hides is that that occurs after Calvin’s god AUTHORS every neurological impulse and no autonomous thoughts are permitted!”
rhutchin
Yes. God created each person, weaving each on into a distinct individual. God gives each person knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. God directs each perosn’s steps……etc
br.d
Created each person such that he would determine their every neurological impulse – and no autonomous thoughts are permitted! ”
rhutchin
No person will think any thought that God does not know beforehand ….etc
br.d
See how the Calvinist needs to SNEAK in divine foreknowledge via observation! – In order to remain Biblical of-course :-].
rhutchin
All this is done within God’s eternal plan that encompasses the movement of every atom from the beginning to the end.
br.d
Exactly!
But just wait a minute – and watch the Calvinist about face – and SNEAK in the very things he just rejected!
rhutchin
All this is done with people who want to do what they want and have no desire for the things of God.
br.d
There you have it!
The Calvinist needs to SNEAK in a degree of creaturely autonomy – and “mere” permission of the creaturely desires.
Just to remain Biblical of-course :-]
rhutchin
It is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God;s plan.
br.d
BING!
rhutchin
No evil desire arises form man’s evil nature unless God says it will.
br.d
More precisely – no desire arises unless Calvin’s god AUTHORS it.
rhutchin
all to “make” them do His will.
br.d
BING!
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He *INSPIRE* it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
br.d writes, “The Calvinist needs to SNEAK in a degree of creaturely autonomy – and “mere” permission of the creaturely desires.”
Not autonomy, just creaturely freedom.
Then, “John Calvin-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He *INSPIRE* it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)”
Earlier br.d wrote, “I am able to verify the quote from looking at an online copy of the book.
Calvin’s statement starts as the last sentence on page 175.
And the sentence carries over to the top of page 176.”
I don’t think he has actually found that quote yet. I have not. I am pretty sure no one else has either.
br.d writes, “The Calvinist needs to SNEAK in a degree of creaturely autonomy – and “mere” permission of the creaturely desires.”
rhutchin
Not autonomy, just creaturely freedom.
br.d
The tiny little freedom to do ONLY what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN. :-]
Then, “John Calvin-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He *INSPIRE* it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)”
rhutchin
Earlier br.d wrote, “I am able to verify the quote from looking at an online copy of the book.
Calvin’s statement starts as the last sentence on page 175.
And the sentence carries over to the top of page 176.”
I don’t think he has actually found that quote yet. I have not. I am pretty sure no one else has either.
br.d
Too funny! :-]
Rhutchin, A few things in response to your comments …
That God “foreknows things” and that He “decrees or ordains things” (by which Calvinists mean “causes”) are two very different things. VERY DIFFERENT! But you seem to keep trying to blend them into one thing, bouncing back and forth as if they are inter-changeable. They are not. God can foreknow what will happen, and choose to allow it or block it. Or He can cause things to happen. And I think He works in both ways, at different times. Sometimes causing, sometimes allowing. But He NEVER causes the things He commands us not to do, and He never prevents us from doing the things He commands us to do (unless the person first hardened their own heart, and then God further hardens it, making their choice permanent). That is a contradiction of His character, of who He is. Calvinists do not see the proper, biblical distinction between cause vs. allow. And they end up changing God into a horrible, monstrous, contradictory, illogical, irrational version of Himself. Calvinists really need to spend some more time trying to figure out the difference between cause and allow, because it greatly affects their theology and their view of God. And they will be held accountable for the version of God they preach to others.
[For example, God says that He establishes (ordains) all governments, right? Which we often take to mean that He deliberately chose all the leaders, that He controls them all, right? But in Hosea 8:4, He says “They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.” Either God is lying in one of those verses because they can’t both be true if “ordains” means “controls/causes” … or we misunderstand “ordains.” We assume it must mean that God controls all the leaders and governments. But I think it’s more accurate to say that “ordains” doesn’t have to always mean “cause.” Sometimes, it can simply mean that He gives us what we demand, that He allows us to get our way, even if He doesn’t want it for us. God doesn’t always “cause.” Sometimes He simply “allows.” This is the only way both those verses can be true.]
And I would challenge you to find in Genesis the part where God cursed Adam and Eve like this: “I am now taking away your right to think on your own or to make any decisions on your own. You and your descendants shall now do only what I cause you to do.” Being totally unable to make decisions or to think on our own was not a consequence of the fall. But losing our position with God was. Being spiritually “dead” doesn’t mean we can’t think or seek or make decisions. It means we are separated from God and unable to save ourselves. So God sent Jesus to be the sacrifice for us, to offer salvation to anyone who wants it.
And you quoted from Ephesians “we too formerly lived in the lusts of the flesh … and were by nature children of wrath.” How can this be if they were predestined from before time began to be the “elected” ones? They could never have been “children of wrath” if they were never destined for wrath but only for salvation.
You mentioned “creaturely freedom”. What is that? Freedom from what? From control (i.e. God’s control)? Freedom to do what? To make decisions? How is “creaturely freedom” different from free-will? And “freedom to do exactly what God predestined you to do” won’t cut it. Because that’s not freedom at all.
And finally, why do you spend so much time debating about this issue if God has already predetermined what we will all decide? Do you think you can somehow influence or override what God has sovereignly fore-ordained? Does He “need” you to help Him carry out His sovereign Will? If He does, then that means something hinges on your obedience, that you can have an effect on what happens in life, and that you can choose whether to obey His command to debate this issue or to disobey it. And if He “needs” you to obey His commands, and if you can choose between obeying or disobeying, and if your choice has an effect … then you are right back to free-will, to the freedom/responsibility to make choices.
I can see that you want to honor God for the mighty God He is. And I can appreciate that. But if He has chosen to allow mankind to make decisions that He will hold them accountable for … and yet you keep insisting that mankind cannot make any decisions because God decides everything for us … then you are not really honoring Him for the God that He is. I think Calvinism is “Mankind telling God how God has to be in order to be considered God.” And in doing so – in trying to uphold their version of God’s sovereignty – they do disastrous damage to His character, His Gospel, His grace, love, forgiveness, Jesus’s sacrifice, people’s chance of salvation, people’s faith and trust in Him, etc.
I know it’s hard to break free from Calvinism because it feels like you are dishonoring God. But I suggest reading the Bible without any Calvinist glasses on. Get to know Him as He reveals Himself to be. You might be surprised to see that He’s far different than you’ve been led to believe. And it will set you free and open up your eyes to His grace and love in a way you never imagined. Blessings to you!
Good post Heather!
If you haven’t seen it yet – you may be interested in a presentation given by William Lane Craig on the underlying notion that drives the Calvinist view of divine foreknowledge.
Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXUMhSmeivE
rhutchin however is well known here at SOT101 for using Double-Speak on foreknowledge in his exculpatory arguments.
John Calvin forcibly rejected the idea of divine foreknowledge via observation.
Calvinists however find themselves needing to SNEAK IN (in camouflaged forms) foreknowledge via observation – as part of their exculpatory arguments.
They do the same thing with divine permission.
What Calvin calls “mere” permission – he also forcibly rejected.
But again Calvinists find themselves needing to SNEAK IN (in camouflaged forms) “mere” permission – as part of their exculpatory arguments.
So you will see this effect in rhutchin’s statements – especially regarding divine foreknowledge.
Divine foreknowledge and human freedom
www youtube.com/watch?v=mXUMhSmeivE
(I separated the www because the server here seems to want to remove the link)
heather writes, “That God “foreknows things” and that He “decrees or ordains things” (by which Calvinists mean “causes”) are two very different things. VERY DIFFERENT!
I agree. That God foreknows the future makes the future certain. That God is omnipotent means that He ordain that future as He could have changed that future. As you say, “God can foreknow what will happen, and choose to allow it or block it.” However, that future is made necessary by the actions people take.
Then, “He NEVER causes the things He commands us not to do, and He never prevents us from doing the things He commands us to do”
I agree. However, God still knows what we will do absent His involvement in causing/preventing.
Then, “Calvinists do not see the proper, biblical distinction between cause vs. allow.”
For the Calvinist, there is no difference between “cause” and “allow.” That is because God is omnipotent and able to bring about certain events (e.g., the flood of Noah; the impregnation of Mary) or do nothing and natural events will play out as He knows they will (e.g., Cain murders Abel; the Jews stone Stephen), In both cases, God knew the outcome, but not because He observed them first and God incorporated those events into His eternal plan, so no event that is to occur is unaccounted for by God.
Then, “But I think it’s more accurate to say that “ordains” doesn’t have to always mean “cause.” Sometimes, it can simply mean that He gives us what we demand, that He allows us to get our way, even if He doesn’t want it for us.”
That’s what Calvinism says. By ordain, Calvinism means that God is always the remote cause of all events and man is the proximate cause of all things. By “cause,” Calvinists do not mean “coerce” or directly affect. God causes some events through secondary causes (e.g., Cain murders Abel). God, being omnipotent can get any outcome He wants; therefore the events the do happen are said to be caused by God regardless whether God directly causes those events or works through people to bring about those events. A good example of this is God’s use of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10.
Then, “I would challenge you to find in Genesis the part where God cursed Adam and Eve like this:..Being spiritually “dead” doesn’t mean we can’t think or seek or make decisions.”
Calvinism agrees with the point you are making. Remember that God still knows the future perfectly. So, despite a person’s ability to think and make decisions, God knows what they will think and what decisions they will make even before they think it or decide it.
Then, “And you quoted from Ephesians “we too formerly lived in the lusts of the flesh … and were by nature children of wrath.” How can this be if they were predestined from before time began to be the “elected” ones?”
That God elects people to salvation means that God decided to intervene in the lives of certain people to bring them to salvation. As Paul explains, “…when God who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,…” God determined that the penalty for Adam’s sin was separation from Him (spiritual death). This spiritual death was then inherited by Adam’s descendants (e.g., All have sinned; you were dead in trespasses and sins). That God brings certain people to salvation does not prevent any other person hearing the gospel and seeking salvation.
Then, “You mentioned “creaturely freedom”….And “freedom to do exactly what God predestined you to do” won’t cut it.”
It is free will – the ability of people to think and make decisions. God still knows the future perfectly, so God knows what people will think and decide before they do this. So, God predestines or ordains a perosn’s place of birth, culture, the knowledge that a person gets from studying, his experiences in life, the spiritual death of the person, etc. and these factors bias and limit his thinking and decisionmaking ability, God incorporates all this into His decisions before He created the world to intervene in the affairs of people to affect the outcome He wants.
I’ll address your remaining comments later.
Heather
Then, “He NEVER causes the things He commands us not to do, and He never prevents us from doing the things He commands us to do”
rhutchin
I agree. However, God still knows what we will do absent His involvement in causing/preventing.
br,d
See Heather – here is an excellent example of Double-Speak.
While you are clearly a Calvinist, you seem to differ from a core teaching of Calvinism when you say that God doesn’t prevent any other person from hearing the Gospel and seeking salvation. Not preventing them from something means allowing them the possibility of doing it. That’s not a traditional Calvinist view. In Calvinism, people cannot truly hear the Gospel and seek salvation unless God causes them to, unless He has chosen them and regenerates them in order to hear the Gospel. In Calvinism, man cannot seek God unless God causes them to seek. And He only causes to seek those whom He has chosen to save.
With that one sentence, you contradict your whole premise that God alone causes what we think and believe and do. For if God didn’t elect them, then He chose them to be unelect, which means that He won’t cause them to hear the Gospel and to seek Him … which means that they cannot hear the Gospel and seek Him unless they somehow have the ability to do these things on their own. Without His prompting. So does this mean that God elects some people and controls only the elect, but that He allows the others to make up their own minds and doesn’t control them? That the unelect can operate outside of His divine control? (And yet later you say that God predestines the spiritual death of people. So He predestines their spiritual death, but yet still allows them the possibility of seeking Him? How does that work?)
“Ordaining the future because He knew it would happen and didn’t change it” does not mean He caused it to happen the way it did. It means exactly what you said … basically that “He knew it would happen and chose not to change it.” Meaning that He allowed it to happen that way. That doesn’t mean “caused it to happen that way.” Knowing that someone would sin and allowing them to sin is far different than causing them to sin. (And I think people should stop using the word “ordains” when talking about this issue because it can have two different meanings, and that confuses the issue. To me, it generally means He knew what would happen and allowed it, but to Calvinists it means He causes everything that happens. It would be much less confusing if Calvinists simply said “cause” when they mean “cause.”)
If I may point out, if God’s foreknowledge of an event means that He “causes” it to happen that way and that nothing different could have happened, then why did He tell David (in 1 Samuel 23) that the people of Keilah would hand him over to Saul if David stayed in that town? Because of that warning, David chose to flee the town and not be handed over. God foreknew what would happen if David stayed, but David left. If what Calvinists say is true – that God’s foreknowledge really means He ordains it (causes it) – then God was lying when He said He foreknew the people would hand David over? In Calvinism, “foreknowledge” means “sure to happen because God causes it to happen.” But the thing God foreknew here – that the people would hand David over if he stayed – didn’t happen. And if God had preplanned all along that David would leave, then why would God tell him that there was any other possible outcome? There shouldn’t be any other possible outcome (according to Calvinism) than what God foreknows (i.e. fore-plans and foreordains and causes).
You talk about God incorporating everything to get the outcome He wants. I do not disagree with this. I think God – in His wisdom and foreknowledge – knows how to work everything into His plans and purposes. But He doesn’t do this by things like causing us to sin or to be evil, by causing us to make the decisions we do. I do believe He can and does “manipulate” circumstances to get people into a position where they will willingly choose what He wants them to choose. But He doesn’t override their right to make the final choice to obey or disobey. He might set up the circumstances to get them into the position He wants them in, but they still have to make the final choice to obey or disobey Him. For example, He wanted Paul (then “Saul”) to be His apostle. So Jesus stopped him on the road and blinded him with a brilliant light and spoke to him. God knew that this is what it would take to get Paul to see the truth, to be willing to obey Him. BUT … and this is where Calvinism would disagree … Paul still had the choice to obey or disobey, to accept or refuse. God didn’t not force Paul to believe the truth; He just made the truth so blindingly clear that He knew Paul would see it and accept it. God can and does work circumstances to His favor, to get His plans done. But we choose to be resistant to Him and His prodding, or we choose to agree with Him and be obedient. And in His wisdom and sovereignty, He can and does work our obedience or disobedience into His plans. He can work all our choices into His plans, but they are still OUR choices. Which is why He can hold us accountable for them.
I gently and lovingly suggest that you don’t respond so quickly to comments here. Take some more time to really think this stuff through, to research it on your own, to explore your ideas about this deeply, to see where it all ultimately leads and what it really says about God and how it really compares to the Bible. This issue is not ultimately a debate between anyone here. It’s between you and God. Spend time quietly with God and His Word, in prayer, working through these things. It clearly seems as if you are not really taking the time to listen to anything being said here. Not even to what you yourself are saying, to see how nonsensical and contradictory it is and what it really says about God. You seem much more concerned with simply firing off comments and winning a debate. And if you turn it into a “must win the debate” thing, you will miss out on what the Lord would tell you about His Truth if you had just taken the time to explore this issue with Him, in prayer and in the Word, all on your own, with no one to impress or debate. (I know you are trying to honor God by defending Him here in the way you think He needs defending. But He doesn’t need us to defend Him. He needs us to be willing to spend time with Him – listening to Him, learning from Him, opening our hearts to truth.)
Feel free to address all my comments as you want to. But I won’t be responding for now. It’s time for me to spend my own quiet time with the Lord – something I desperately need after the exhausting weekend I had of trying to take care of my alcoholic mother.
You know … I read of a Calvinist once who used a line like this against someone who disagreed with him: “Why do you insist on believing that in order to be held morally accountable for our choices, we have to have the ability to make choices?”
How do you reason with such nonsense!?! If that Calvinist is willing to cling to the idea that being held accountable for our choices doesn’t mean we have to be allowed to make choices … then there is nothing anyone can say that would get through to him. He was clinging to absolute nonsense yet couldn’t see it, thinking all along that his gibberish was reasonable and true. If someone doesn’t want the truth, they won’t see it.
I really do hope you take some of the time you spend commenting and use it instead on praying and reading the Bible, with fresh eyes, without Calvinist theologians telling you how to read it. it will make all the difference in the world and in your faith and in your view of God. Take care, and thank you for a lively debate. You are helping to keep me sharp!
Good analysis!
rhuthcin’s statements – (slightly more than other Calvinists) – always remind me of Dr. William Lutz, description of DoubleSpeak:
-quote:
“Doublespeak is language designed to evade…..to make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear attractive, or at least tolerable. Basically, it’s language that pretends to communicate, but really doesn’t. It is language designed to mislead, while pretending not to. Doublespeak is not a slip of the tongue or a mistake in use of language. It’s exactly the opposite. It is language used by people who are very intelligent, and very sophisticated in the use of language. And know that you can do an awful lot with language.
Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing. Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is. It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language—communication — and what doublespeak does — mislead, distort, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.
Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through everyday language.
It takes advantage of the fact that normal everyday language use is fundamentally cooperative. Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite: to appear like honest communication while actually hiding incriminating facts. “
heather writes, “While you are clearly a Calvinist, you seem to differ from a core teaching of Calvinism when you say that God doesn’t prevent any other person from hearing the Gospel and seeking salvation.”
For example, Calvin writes, “But if these two members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ever ought to be– “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;” and, “But that the wicked turn from his way and live”– read these two propositions in connection with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once. God requires of us this conversion, or “turning away from our iniquity,” and in whomsoever He finds it He disappoints not such an one of the promised reward of eternal life.”
Then, ” Not preventing them from something means allowing them the possibility of doing it.”
No. It leaves them to their own devices and such devices may or may not allow them the possibility of doing it.
Then, “That’s not a traditional Calvinist view.”
Actually it is, as the above quote from Calvin affirms.
Then, “In Calvinism, people cannot truly hear the Gospel and seek salvation unless God causes them to,…”
As affirmed by Scripture, ““No one can come to Me [Christ says], unless the Father…” So, the truth of your statement, “In Calvinism, man cannot seek God unless God causes them to seek. And He only causes to seek those whom He has chosen to save.”
More later as time permits.
heather writes, “With that one sentence, you contradict your whole premise that God alone causes what we think and believe and do.”
I don’t say it is God alone. God is the remote cause (having determined that a person is born, born with a sin nature, etc.) and the person is the proximate cause of what he thinks and believes (based on his sin nature, knowledge, experience, etc.).
Then, “if God didn’t elect them, then He chose them to be unelect, which means that He won’t cause them to hear the Gospel and to seek Him … which means that they cannot hear the Gospel..”
By “hear the gospel” you mean “hear w/ spiritual ears” not physically hear as many other than those God elects will hear the gospel and will choose to respond as they desire.
Then, “So does this mean that God elects some people and controls only the elect, but that He allows the others to make up their own minds and doesn’t control them?”
That’s what it means. But not out of God’s divine control. God is still in control but does not control them to prevent them seeking their desires.
Then, “And yet later you say that God predestines the spiritual death of people.”
technically, God ordains everyone’s spiritual death as all people inherit Adam’s corrupt nature. God helps His elect and does not help the reprobate; the reprobate can physically hear the gospel and do with it as they desire.
More later.
heather writes, “why do you spend so much time debating about this issue if God has already predetermined what we will all decide?”
When Paul spoke to the Bereans, we read, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” So, we investigate the claims people make for the Scriptures to determine what they are telling us. God has predetermined to give us these Scriptures and only these Scriptures, so we investigate them. In the Proverbs, we read, “Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.” So, people here sharpen each others views of that which the Scriptures tell us, by citing the Scriptures to explain their views. The Proverbs also say, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Taking “kings” to refer to believers, we see that God expects His elect to search out the Scriptures as in done on this site. Thus, the continuing citation and discussion of the Scriptures among people of different persuasions.
Then, “And if He “needs” you to obey His commands, and if you can choose between obeying or disobeying, and if your choice has an effect … then you are right back to free-will, to the freedom/responsibility to make choices.”
God puts before His believers a new command, “Love one another.” This is a free -will decision made possible by the freedom conveyed to believers by the truth, as Jesus said, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” So, we examine the scriptures to determine truth by which we gain greater freedom from the corruption of the world and of our old nature that continues to plague us as we read in Romans 7.
Then, “if [God] has chosen to allow mankind to make decisions that He will hold them accountable for … and yet you keep insisting that mankind cannot make any decisions because God decides everything for us … then you are not really honoring Him for the God that He is.”
I don’t not say that God makes decisions for us. Following Calvin, people make decisions based on the old nature with which they are born or the new nature given to them by God. In neither case does God coerce one decision or the other. However, believers are given the Holy Spirit to help overcome the old nature and follow the new nature as that nature is enhanced during the process of sanctification.
Then, “I think Calvinism is…”
Your thinking is erroneous. If you think that Calvinism “…do disastrous damage to His character, His Gospel, His grace, love, forgiveness, Jesus’s sacrifice, people’s chance of salvation, people’s faith and trust in Him, etc.” then bring up the Scriptures that you see supporting your view and let’s see if you have taken into account all the Scriptures tell us.
Then, “I know it’s hard to break free from Calvinism because it feels like you are dishonoring God.”
I think you meant, “…it feels like you are honoring God.” Actually, it is more than a “feeling.” It comes form the exegesis of the Scriptures (rightly or wrongly).
then, “I suggest reading the Bible without any Calvinist glasses on.”
I do this. In all your comments, you made only one reference to Scripture (Hosea). Why do you do this?? Should you not back up your complaints about Calvinism with specific reference to the Scriptures??
Here is the Scripture I use to back up my view, from my blog https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/:
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/05/predestination-does-not-mean-no-choice.html
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/05/controversial-predestination-verse.html
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/05/does-romans-teach-predestination.html
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/05/does-ephesians-teach-predestination.html
However, I doubt you’ll find it sufficient or intelligent. But have fun reading!
Rhutchin,
Another thought: You say God controls and causes all things we do, right? And I assume you mean “for His glory and HIs plans,” since Calvinists believe that God causes everything that happens for His glory and His plans.
Does God cause people to abort their babies for His glory? Does He cause child abuse for His glory? Does He cause homelessness and starvation for His glory? Does He cause divorce and murder and addictions for His glory? Is He causing my mom to give up on life and to repeatedly try to drink herself to death … for His glory?
If so … then why do we try to stop any of this from happening? If God is trying to do it all for His glory!?!
Why do we try to help the homeless and those with addictions? Why do we try to fight abortion and murder and abuse? Should I have bothered this morning with gathering up my drunk mother from the place she was drinking alone all week, with encouraging her to go to counseling, with basically forcing her to get in my car so I could take her to the airport so she could go home and get help?
Why should we fight any of this if God is causing it all for His glory? Aren’t we just interfering with His efforts to get glory then?
John Calvin says that Satan’s big goal is to extinguish God’s glory. But then Calvinists say that God causes everything that happens for His glory, that He even controls Satan for His glory. So does that mean that God causes Satan to try to extinguish HIs glory … for His glory? You know what Jesus says about a house divided against itself, right? That it can’t stand. And yet Calvi-God seems to work against Himself and contradict Himself all the time. It’s nuts!
Calvi-God is not the God of the Bible! Calvi-God is a figment of people’s imagination. It’s people telling God how God has to be in order to be God!
And I don’t think the real God will take too kindly to that!
Can I suggest something? I suggest you (and all of us) pray and ask God to reveal to you who He really is and how He really acts. Tell Him that you really want to know the truth, that you are willing to know the truth, even if it means finding out you’ve been wrong all this time.
If you are balking at these suggestions – if you find yourself resisting them or coming up with excuses to not do them or rehearsing all your Calvinist arguments – then you should examine your heart to see if you really want God’s truth, or if you’d really rather just cling to your own version of the truth.
I am offering this suggestion out of genuine concern. I would love to see as many captives (of Calvinism) set free as possible! Blessings!
Just in case you are not aware – Calvinists deal with questions such as this – with a doctrine that stipulates two divine wills.
The “prescriptive/spoken” will.
And the SECRET will.
These two wills are in complete opposition to each other.
For example, Calvin’s god’s “prescriptive/spoken” will is found in his command that Adam not disobey and eat of the forbidden fruit.
However Calvin’s god’s SECRET is a supernatural force that does not permit Adam to obey.
Disobedience is forced upon Adam as his unavoidable fate.
But if you already know these things – please ignore this post.
I replied here, but don’t see it. So I will try again.
Br.D,
Thank you and TSOO for all your comments here. You are both so right on! And yes, I do know about what you are saying here. I just wish Calvinists would be able to see how unreasonable and contradictory and unbiblical their views are. Their view of God and His sovereignty completely alters His character and Jesus’s sacrifice and salvation and everything. But they can’t see it. And they won’t ever see it if they don’t want to see it. This is why Jesus spoke in parables. Because He knew there was no point in giving the truth to those who don’t want it, who will only turn on you and attack the truth. Pearls before swine. It’s unfortunate how many good, well-meaning people are held hostage by Calvinism. It’s not much different than a cult. Such a shame. Thanks again to you and to TSOO for all your comments here and your efforts to stand up for truth. And thank to the authors of this blog for speaking out against Calvinism. All we can do is our part to share the truth, to plant seeds, and then we have to leave the rest up to the person and God.
God bless!
Thank you Heather and yes I agree with you.
I believe the reason we observe Calvinists in DoubleSpeak is due to the burdens the belief system forces on them.
Dr. Alvin Plantinga uses a true real-life story to exemplify this.
He tells the story of a certain professor who wrote a book on what it was like to live as a Solipsist.
(a person who believes he is the only real living human and all other persons are figments of his imagination)
He published the book and a lady in the UK read it and wrote a letter of appreciation to him.
She stated how relieved she was to recognize she is also a Solipsist.
And she was so relieved to know she wasn’t alone!
I think you get the humor in that story! :-]
But Dr. Plantinga gives the story also to show how some belief systems inadvertently force the human mind into a state of Double-mindedness in order to embrace it.
br.d writes, “I believe the reason we observe Calvinists in DoubleSpeak is due to the burdens the belief system forces on them. ”
br.d is always free to identify examples of Double-speak when they occur and explain how the language used adheres to the definition of Double-Speak. He is good at claiming Double-speak but not good at explaining his claims.
br.d
“I believe the reason we observe Calvinists in DoubleSpeak is due to the burdens the belief system forces on them. ”
rhutchin
br.d is always free to identify examples of Double-speak when they occur and explain how the language used adheres to the definition of Double-Speak. He is good at claiming Double-speak but not good at explaining his claims.
br.d
Heather gets it!
And as I’ve said – the most efficient and provable method is to simply let the Calvinists provide the examples.
And oh do they!
All I need do then is shine the spot-light on those examples.
Open minded SOT101 readers are smart enough to connect the dots.
Those who predisposed not to – don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear. :-]
br.d writes, “Heather gets it!”
Great!! Maybe Heather will address the deficiencies in your claims.
br.d
Heather gets it!”
rhutchin
Great!! Maybe Heather will address the deficiencies in your claims.
br.d
You are funny rhutchin! :-]
heather writes, ” You say God controls and causes all things we do, right?”
Yes, respecting God as the remote cause and people as the proximate causes. We see this illustrated in the example of Joseph and his brothers, “….as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” and the Assyrians of Isaiah 10, “I send Assyria against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy, And to cut off many nations.”
Then, “Does He cause homelessness and starvation for His glory?”
Yes, as explained in Deuterinomy, “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you…Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock…The LORD will make the rain of your land powder and dust;…You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall violate her; you shall build a house, but you shall not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not use its fruit…ou shall bring out much seed to the field but you shall gather in little, for the locust shall consume it. You shall plant and cultivate vineyards, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, for the worm shall devour them.”
Then, “why do we try to stop any of this from happening? If God is trying to do it all for His glory!?!”
Because there is glory in obeying God.
Then, “Calvi-God seems to work against Himself and contradict Himself all the time. It’s nuts!”
No. Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.” and “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” and “God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.” God is working out His plan without contradiction.
Then, “I am offering this suggestion out of genuine concern.”
Yet, you never cite the Scriptures as if they have nothing to offer. Absent reference to the Scriptures, everything you say is no more than your personal opinion. You need to reinforce your opinions with proper Scriptures (i.e., truth) turning your opinions into exegesis of the Scripture.
rhutchin
Yet, you never cite the Scriptures as if they have nothing to offer.
br.d
Language is easily manipulated and distorted – and this is no less the case with the language of scripture.
Take for example this equivocal argument:
“Gender IDENTIFICATION” is what IDENTIFIES a person’s true gender – and not personal preference.”
This is not a LOGICAL argument – its a SEMANTIC argument.
Calvinists arguments using scripture follow the same exact model.
They are not LOGICAL arguments – they are SEMANTIC arguments.
That is why Calvinist arguments always collapse under the scrutiny of LOGIC.
Take for example the Calvinist deceptive appeal to divine intervention/prevention.
Which LOGICALLY boils down to Calvin’s god AUTHORING events for himself to intervene to prevent.
To present the ILLUSION that he didn’t AUTHOR them.
The only way Calvinists can forward these types of arguments is by using the SEMANTICS of illusory language.
As Dr. Jerry Walls says:
-quote:
“If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric – Calvinism would loose all credibility in two years”
And back in 1855 writes Francis Hodgson writes:
-quote:
“The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency.
In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”
br.d writes, “Which LOGICALLY boils down to Calvin’s god AUTHORING events for himself to intervene to prevent.”
I have addressed this before, so I am perplexed at your continuing false claim. God authors all events including those events where He intervenes in the affairs of people. He does not author an event in which He then intervenes. Those events in which God intervenes are included in those events He originally authors. God is the remote cause of all events and some events involve people as proximate causes with examples being the situation involving Joseph and that involving the Assyrians.
br.d
Which LOGICALLY boils down to Calvin’s god AUTHORING events for himself to intervene to prevent.”
rhutchin
I have addressed this before, so I am perplexed at your continuing false claim. God authors all events including those events where He intervenes in the affairs of people. He does not author an event in which He then intervenes.
br.d
Yes – here is your self-contradicting irrational response to that question:
br.d
May 7, 2019 at 12:44 pm
What is the exact STATUS of the event he RESTRAINED prior to RESTRAINING it?
You have two options:
1) RENDERED-CERTAIN and thus immutable – and cannot be restrained
2) NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN and therefore not going to come to pass in the first place
rhutchin
May 8, 2019 at 9:53 am
Immutable and can’t be restrained because it was already restrained.
Thank you for proving my point!
And thus it LOGICALLY boils down to Calvin’s god AUTHORING events for himself to intervene to prevent :-]
br.d writes, “Yes – here is your self-contradicting irrational response to that question:”
Can someone explain br.d’s argument?
br.d
Yes – here is your self-contradicting irrational response to that question:”
rhutchin
Can someone explain br.d’s argument?
br.d
Its elementary my dear Watson!
This has been explained LOGICALLY about 10 times
But one has to give up MAGICAL THINKING in order to understand LOGIC.
Firstly:
In Calvin’s Theological Determinism it follows:
1) The event [X] WILL NOT come to pass unless its STATUS = RENDERED-CERTAIN.
2) If the STATUS of [X] = RENDERED-CERTAIN – then [X] is immutable and cannot be altered/changed/prevented.
3) So in order for Calvin’s god to prevent [X] its STATUS *MUST* = NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN
4) If the STATUS of [X] = NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – then it was never going to come to pass – thus nothing to prevent.
Secondly:
In LOGIC – the process of PREVENTION entails changing that events STATE from “COMING TO PASS” to “NOT COMING TO PASS”.
And in Calvinism’s case – to meet that criteria its STATUS *MUST* = RENDERED-CERTAIN
Thus the question I posed to you – and your irrational answer:
br.d
May 7, 2019 at 12:44 pm
What is the exact STATUS of the event he RESTRAINED prior to RESTRAINING it?
You have two options:
1) RENDERED-CERTAIN and thus immutable – and cannot be restrained
2) NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN and therefore not going to come to pass in the first place
rhutchin
May 8, 2019 at 9:53 am
Immutable and can’t be restrained because it was already restrained.
However – there is nothing to prevent Calvin’s god from AUTHORING an event for himself to APPEAR to prevent.
Especially for the purpose of presenting the ILLUSION of not having AUTHORED it.
Which we already know is the REAL reason for this Calvinist argument! :-]
br.d writes, “3) So in order for Calvin’s god to prevent [X] its STATUS *MUST* = NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN”
This is wrong as has been explained. That which God prevents (e.g., Joseph’s brothers killing him) is included among those things God has rendered certain.
The error of (3) makes the conclusion (4) wrong. It can only read, “4) If the STATUS of [X] = RENDERED-CERTAIN – then it was always going to come to pass – thus making certain God’s intervention to prevent.”
Your logic is erroneous through the misspecification of (3) leading to an erroneous (4), as was explained before.
br.d
3) So in order for Calvin’s god to prevent [X] its STATUS *MUST* = NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN”
rhutchin
This is wrong as has been explained. That which God prevents (e.g., Joseph’s brothers killing him) is included among those things God has rendered certain.
The error of (3) makes the conclusion (4) wrong. It can only read, “4) If the STATUS of [X] = RENDERED-CERTAIN – then it was always going to come to pass – thus making certain God’s intervention to prevent.”
Your logic is erroneous through the misspecification of (3) leading to an erroneous (4), as was explained before.
br.d
In order to prove this is LOGICALLY TRUE – you will have to show how Calvin’s god can alter/change/prevent and event that has its STATUS = RENDERED-CERTAIN prior to it being altered/changed/prevented.
Until then – what you have is Calvin’s god AUTHORING events to give the APPEARANCE of preventing them.
What we need here is “mere” permission to make your theory work.
But what we have is an excellent example of Calvinism’s need to SIMULATE a world of IN-DETERMINISM
In order to stay aligned with scripture.
But what we have here is a good example of Calvinism’s square-circles and married-bachelors – good luck with that! :-]
Calvinism robs the Calvinist of “mere” permission.
But there are LOGICAL consequences to not having “mere” permission.
Calvin’s god AUTHORS every event.
Every event Calvin’s god AUTHORS “certain” to come to pass – giving it the STATUS of “unalterable/unpreventable”..
But the Calvinist sees the God of scripture altering/preventing/restraining events.
And there events in scripture are perfectly LOGICALLY coherent in a world where “mere” permission exists.
So the Calvinist needs to find a way to MIMIC or produce the ILLUSION of “mere” permission.
He wants to say that Calvin’s god AUTHORS the event prior to himself preventing it.
And he wants to say Calvin’s events were -quote “already” altered/prevented/restrained” in Calvin’s god’s mind – before they were altered/prevented/restrained.
But he doesn’t want to acknowledge that that LOGICALLY boils down to Calvin’s god AUTHORING events for himself to alter/prevent/restrain.
So sad!
The Calvinist has been robbed of “mere” permission.
And in order to remain aligned with scripture – he has to find a way to manufacture a camouflaged form of it.
Good description. And to perform this feat, they must create an illusive (because logically impossible) concept of man’s desires or choices that somehow arise from something other than God’s direct determination.
When they say God ‘ordained’ an evil event they mean ‘allowed or permitted, but Calvinism does not allow or permit such things, so they seek to use euphemism to blur their meaning. They want to cling to two contradictory truths, because one is demanded by their theological system and the other is demanded by scripture and reason.
Non-Calvinists agree that a sovereign God could prevent evil, but due to gifting his created beings with reason and choice, he has self-limited his limitless power to allow for their free choices. So the non-Calvinist grants that evil exists by the ‘mere permission’ of God, but never due to his desire, determination or causation, either directly or indirectly. They have boundless scripture on their side.
Again and again God, in scripture, states that he did not wish for an individual or people to perform a certain act, and/or that he was angry when they did such and such an evil thing. He makes this abundantly plain in Jeremiah 19:3-5:
“This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: . . . ‘For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods . . . they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn theirs sons in the fire as offerings to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.’”
Scripture could not be much more helpful in making sure we understand that this evil – sacrificing children – did not stem God. If child sacrifice never entered his mind, then he most certainly did not desire or decree this evil thing. Calvinism blatantly denies what this, and countless other passages, state about God not being the source of man’s evil choices.
And this, in a nutshell, is the whole point of the system. To deny man’s responsibility for his own choices, to remove the seriousness with which we are called to consider our lives and our choices. This leads to a lackadaisical mindset, leaving men and women vulnerable to sin and error. This is why I perceive it as a doctrine of demons.
Awesome post TS00!
I am reminded of Calvinism’s DREADED FALSE HOPE syndrome.
The Calvinist who even starts to REALLY think LOGICALLY about his system is sliding into dangerous territory.
The only psychological escape he has is DOUBLE-THINK:
BELIEVE [A] is FALSE *AS-IF* [A] is TRUE.
“Mere” permission doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
Divine Foreknowledge via observation doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
The THEOS determines all things in every part – *AS-IF* he doesn’t.
Every sin that came to pass was RENDERED-CERTAIN and thus there was NO way of escape *AS-IF* there was.
And the list goes on.
And they want to call that living the Gospel! :-]
The whole affair always reminds me of Lewis’ Screwtape Letters; Satan really knows how play to our flesh and sell us a tempting bill of goods.
TS00 writes, ‘When they say God ‘ordained’ an evil event they mean ‘allowed or permitted, >>>”
By this Calvinists mean that God decreed it whatever word is used.
correction: ‘did not stem from God’
br.d writes, “But the Calvinist sees the God of scripture altering/preventing/restraining events.”
That is because we read of such things in the Scriptures. For example, Joseph’s brothers, plotted to kill Joseph, but God intervened through Reuben and he was sold to the slave traders. Thereby, God sent Joseph to Egypt according to His plan. There are many other examples.
Then, “But [the Calvinist] doesn’t want to acknowledge that that LOGICALLY boils down to Calvin’s god AUTHORING events for himself to alter/prevent/restrain.”
No. God authored the events as we see them recorded in the Scriptures. God did not author Joseph’s death but He did author the brother’s desire to put Joseph to death. Everything we read in the Scripture was authored by God exactly as recorded. One need not go further than that recorded in the Scriptures.
God did not author an event that He then altered unless you have an example where He did.
rhutchin writes:
“No. God authored the events as we see them recorded in the Scriptures. God did not author Joseph’s death but He did author the brother’s desire to put Joseph to death. Everything we read in the Scripture was authored by God exactly as recorded. One need not go further than that recorded in the Scriptures.
God did not author an event that He then altered unless you have an example where He did.”
Wow. Just, wow.
Can anyone really think this way, or is it just playing games with words?
God authors everything. God first authored the brothers’ desire to kill Joseph, then prevented them from doing so. What kinda God does this man believe in? Really? ‘Ha, ha, just for fun I’m going to make these guys want to commit murder – of their own kin. But then I will prevent them from actually doing it. I mean, hey, I need something to do all day. Then I can burn these guys for desiring to committing murder.’
All in the day of Calvi-God, the crazed maniac who creates evil in order to prevent it.
TS00 writes, “God first authored the brothers’ desire to kill Joseph, then prevented them from doing so. ”
Calvinists believe that God knows the thoughts of a person before he thinks them – God is sovereign even over the thoughts of people. God has the power to remove any thought that He does not want to arise in the mind of a person. If God does not remove such thoughts, then He becomes the remote cause (or author) of the thoughts (because He made the person w/a sin nature) while the person is the proximate cause of his thoughts. Of course, God’s decisions were made in eternity past but implemented in the course of time.
TS00
God first authored the brothers’ desire to kill Joseph, then prevented them from doing so. ”
rhutchin
Calvinists believe that God knows the thoughts of a person before he thinks them
br.d
An excellent example of the Calvinist attempt to SNEAK (in camouflaged form) Foreknowledge via observation.
The TRUTH:
Calvin’s god knows them because Calvin’s god AUTHORS them.
rhutchin
God has the power to remove any thought that He does not want to arise in the mind of a person.
br.d
An excellent example of the Calvnist attempt to SNEAK (in camouflaged form) “mere” permission.
The TRUTH:
Here Calvin’s god would be removing the very neurological impulse he himself AUTHORED.
rhutchin
If God does not remove such thoughts, then He becomes the remote cause (OR AUTHOR) of the thoughts
br.d
BING!
rhutchin
because He made the person w/a sin nature
br.d
BING! Calvin’s god AUTHORED the sin nature in every part.
rhutchin
while the person is the proximate cause of his thoughts.
br.d
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL of God
John Calvin:
-quote
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
br.d
But the Calvinist sees the God of scripture altering/preventing/restraining events.”
rhutchin
That is because we read of such things in the Scriptures. For example, Joseph’s brothers, plotted to kill Joseph, but God intervened through Reuben and he was sold to the slave traders. Thereby, God sent Joseph to Egypt according to His plan. There are many other examples.
br.d
A LOGICALLY coherent in a world where “mere” permission exists.
So sad Calvinists need to manufacture camouflaged forms of “mere” permission. :-]
Then, “But [the Calvinist] doesn’t want to acknowledge that that LOGICALLY boils down to Calvin’s god AUTHORING events for himself to alter/prevent/restrain.”
rhutchin
No. God authored the events as we see them recorded in the Scriptures. …etc
br.d
TA claim repeated over and over – without any LOGIC to prove it.
rhutchin
God did not author an event that He then altered unless you have an example where He did.
br.d
My analysis shows what LOGICALLY follows with Calvin’s god – not the God of scripture.
BIG DIFFERENCE! :-]
Since my belief system is not Calvinism – I am not robbed of “mere” permission.
And don’t have to face the LOGICAL consequences of not having it.
Divine prevention in that context is logically coherent.
So unfortunate for Calvinists who have to manufacture arguments designed to MIMIC “mere” permission – in order to align themselves with scripture.
br.d writes, “In order to prove this is LOGICALLY TRUE – you will have to show how Calvin’s god can alter/change/prevent and event that has its STATUS = RENDERED-CERTAIN prior to it being altered/changed/prevented.”
No. God does not alter His plan; God alters the plans of men. Thus, ‘The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” Your thinking is skewed on this. Yet, in no case, do the Scriptures record that God changed anything that He had rendered certain. If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain your thinking (maybe heather will help you).
br.d
In order to prove this is LOGICALLY TRUE – you will have to show how Calvin’s god can alter/change/prevent and event that has its STATUS = RENDERED-CERTAIN prior to it being altered/changed/prevented.”
rhutchin
No. God does not alter His plan; God alters the plans of men.
br.d
AH! here is another attempt to MIMIC “mere” permission.
By creating the ILLUSION that events called “the plans of men” are not RENDER-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) before men exist.
Remember Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) AUTHORS all events – which includes “the plans of men”.
So this again LOGICALLY proves – Calvin’s god is altering what he has AUTHORED.
To bad – Calvinists don’t have “mere” permission!
They wouldn’t have to manufacture FAKE and IRRATIONAL forms of it.
rhutchin
Yet, in no case, do the Scriptures record that God changed anything that He had rendered certain.
br.d
Easy answers – I don’t make the mistake of conflating Calvinism with scripture. :-]
Your challenge about me not providing Scripture is understandable, fair enough. I tried to send links to my blog and the posts with the Scripture to back up my view, but it didn’t go through. Click on my name here, and it should take you to my blog, The Anti-Calvinist Rant. Or google “anti-Calvinist rant blogspot” to see if you can find it. Or google my other one – “My Crazy Faith” blogspot, and find a link in the right side-bar. (I’m not sure which way is easiest to find it.)
Then look in the archives (in May’s posts) for these posts: “Does Romans Teach Predestination?” and “Does Ephesians Teach Predestination?” and “Controversial ‘Predestination’ Verse” and “Predestination Does Not Mean ‘No Choice.'”
It’s all there. Although I doubt you’ll find it sufficient or very intelligent. But have fun reading anyway! However, I do not allow comments on my blogs, so if you want to comment on them or tear them apart, you’ll have to start your own blog for that 🙂
And FYI, I asked “Does God cause those things FOR HIS GLORY” not simply “Does God cause those things?” I agree He causes bad things to happen sometimes, for His reasons, such as storms or droughts. Many times this is for discipline or punishment, a curse for the people’s disobedience (after He gave them the option of obeying or disobeying, oftentimes warning them first of the consequences that go with both). And yes, He does cause “bad things” for His glory sometimes, such as the plagues in Egypt. But this is far different than causing people to sin or to disobey or to go to hell for His glory. I should have clarified that I meant God does not cause people to sin for His glory (child abuse, affairs, addictions, murder, etc.). He lets us sin and uses it for His glory. He might even encourage us to act out the sin that is already in our hearts so that He can use it. But He does not control us or cause us to sin, as if we had no choice about it. He does not cause us to do the things He commands us not to do. (Funny how you pulled out only the homelessness and starvation examples I brought up, and yet you didn’t address the sinful examples like abortion, murder, etc.)
And your idea that God is the ultimate (“remote”) cause but that people are the proximate cause is still basically saying “God causes us to do what we do, God causes us to sin.” As you say, we either operate by the old nature (unable to respond to God or to obey) or the new nature that He gives only to the elect. So if someone has an old nature, it’s because God prohibited them from getting a new nature (because He didn’t “elect” them,) and so they have no choice but to operate by their old nature. God alone controlled whether they would be sinful/disobedient/rebellious or not. They really don’t have a choice. They are acting the way God pre-decided they would act, and can act no other way. This is still God controlling them, causing them to sin. Trying to make a differentiation between “remote cause” and “proximity cause” doesn’t change that. It’s just trying to make it sound like you have a legitimate argument.
I agree with br.d about the double-speak. I think Calvinists use a lot of confusing words and ideas to make their view sound more scholarly, logical, or legitimate than it really is. I guess if their theology is not clear enough, logical enough, reasonable enough, and solidly biblical enough to convince people it’s true, then maybe they can at least confuse people with rambling words and ideas, to the point where other people will simply start nodding their heads in agreement. Not even sure what they are agreeing to, but too confused to disagree. (This has been fun. Thanks!)
And actually, what I mean is that God does not cause sin or wickedness or cause us to go to hell PERIOD. Not even just not “for His glory.” I realize it confuses the issue a bit the way I wrote it above. But I included the “for His glory” part because that’s how Calvinists try to justify their view that God causes sin and unbelief. They think that if they say “God causes people to sin or to go to hell FOR HIS GLORY,” then no one will disagree with them. Because who wants to deny God’s right to get glory however He decides to?
But … biblically … God does not cause people to sin or to be wicked. Yes, He sometimes causes bad things (natural disasters, illness, etc.), but He never causes the things He commands us not to do (sin, rebel, reject Him). Nor does He prevent us from doing the things He commands us to do (obey, believe, etc.). But He can and does let us choose what we want to do, and then He works our choices into His plans, for His glory. He didn’t cause Assyria to be wicked, but He did use their wickedness to discipline Israel. It’s like God picked up the wicked Assyrians and said, “Since you’re going to choose to be wicked anyway, then be wicked over here by Israel.” He did this to discipline Israel and to turn their hearts back to Him. And this is why God could justly punish the Assyrians, because He didn’t cause them to be wicked. They chose to be the wicked people they wanted to be. And God just worked it into His plans.
Heather
They chose to be the wicked people they wanted to be. And God just worked it into His plans.
br.d
Yes – I am reminded of how Dr. Jerry Walls put it – in terms of the divine chess player.
In the Calvinism scheme – he wins by CAUSING the other player to make specific moves – which he then takes advantage of.
In the Non-Calvinist scheme he “merely” permits the other player to make his OWN moves.
He doesn’t have to design the other player to function as a puppet/robot in order to win.
He leaves people free to love him because of who He is – and in spite of who they are.
Unlike Calvin’s god – people don’t have to be programmed to act *AS-IF* they love him.
br.d writes, “In the Calvinism scheme – he wins by CAUSING the other player to make specific moves – which he then takes advantage of.
In the Non-Calvinist scheme he “merely” permits the other player to make his OWN moves.”
Here, there is no difference between “causing” and “merely permitting” in affecting God’s will. That which God causes, He is the direct influence on the outcome (e.g., the flood of Noah; the impregnation of Mary). That which God”merely permits” uses an intermediary to influence the outcome but is still accomplished for His purposes (e.g., Satan’s torture of Job; the Assyrians in Isaiah 10). br.d has not separated God from willing the final outcome by using terms like “cause’ and “merely permit.” There is no example from Scripture to which br/d can point to illustrate the difference he thinks he make. this is just an example of double-speak by br.d and everyone knows it.
br.d
In the Calvinism scheme – he wins by CAUSING the other player to make specific moves – which he then takes advantage of. In the Non-Calvinist scheme he “merely” permits the other player to make his OWN moves.”
rhutchin
Here, there is no difference between “causing” and “merely permitting” in affecting God’s will. That which God causes, He is the direct influence on the outcome.
br.d
What a hoot rhutchin – you so consistently want what John Calvin says you can’t have.
For Calvin – Calvin’s god AUTHORS [person X]’s not only every decision – but every neurological impulse.
That’s a far cry from “merely” permitting [person X] to make AUTONOMOUS decisions.
And John Cavlin says you can’t have “mere” permission – calling it a REVOLTING FRIVOLOUS REFUGE.
But I can see why you need “mere” permission so much.
Its a matter of staying aligned with the general pattern of scripture.
rhutchin
That which God”merely permits” uses an intermediary to influence the outcome but is still accomplished for His purposes (e.g.,
Satan’s torture of Job; the Assyrians in Isaiah 10).
br.d
Firstly:
Your appeal to intermediary influences is a good example of the AD HOC fallacy:
Description:
Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to MAKE UP STUFF despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are MAKING UP.
Secondly:
If you had said that in Geneva in Calvin’s day – he would have had your tongue run through with a red-hot iron.
Good thing you waited till now! :-]
rhutchin
There is no example from Scripture to which br/d can point to illustrate the difference he thinks he make.
br.d
Silly bird! Its not mine but John Calvin’s point – he is the one who REJECTS the notion of “mere” permission.
Too bad the Calvinist is robbed of “mere” permission, all creaturely autonomy, and foreknowledge via observation.
Forcing the Calvinist to find ways to SNEAK (in camouflaged form) these things back into their system.
Only this time it was not as well camouflaged as the normal attempts! :-]
br.d. writes:
“Too bad the Calvinist is robbed of “mere” permission, all creaturely autonomy, and foreknowledge via observation.”
This is the important point, for those who are, perhaps, on the fence. Honest, consistent Calvinism cannot affirm mere permission, creaturely autonomy or God’s providence based upon foreknowledge or observation. It is not, as some attempt to claim, merely a matter of not agreeing 100% with Calvin. One cannot, logically, be a 1, 2, 3 o 4-point Calvinist. Not because it is ‘forbidden’, but because it is impossible. The system requires all 5 codependent points.
The system cannot uphold human autonomy in any form. I don’t know how many ways one has to say it, but Divine Determinism is antithetical, contradictory, the very opposite of human autonomy. Nothing can make two opposite, contradictory things both true at the same time. If God were to perform such a feat, you can be sure he would describe and explain his exception to his established laws of nature, as he did all other miracles.
Isn’t the slightest bit odd that rather than questioning their contradictions Calvinism always asserts a ‘miracle’ or divine mystery. It couldn’t possibly be that they simply have it wrong, now could it? It couldn’t possibly be that the reasonable alternatives offered by others contain the solution to their ‘mysteries’, now could it?
Well said! :-]
Heather, you know the drill . . . and the script. Most of us grow weary of rhutchin’s games and just leave him to dance alone. 😉 We comment for the sake of others who want to sincerely wrestle with important ideas, rather than dogmatically defend Calvinism. Unlike rh, most who comment here have been non-Calvinist, then Calvinist, then former and/or anti-Calvinist. That gives us a rather broad perspective of the topics, from nearly every angle. Those in the bubble remain, well, in the bubble.
It is people who have nagging doubts, who admit that there are things about Calvinism that just don’t seem to jive with scripture, logic or actual experience who we seek to present with careful reasoning as to why we have rejected the Calvinist interpretations of scripture. This, I know from your blogs, you understand well.
Br.d. shared a video earlier about the intrinsic illogicalness of Calvinism. (Thank you for that, by the way. I will check it out.)
Here is a video my husband and I love, called “Hitler and Calvinism.” (I wish I could project in on the screen behind my Calvi-pastor as he hammers on and on about Calvinism):
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hitler+and+calvinism&&view=detail&mid=131DC1E7BF0956BFF545131DC1E7BF0956BFF545&&FORM=VRDGAR
Thank you Heather!
That video on Hitler defending Calvin had me laughing off my chair! 😀
Rhutchin says there is no difference between causing or permitting when it comes to accomplishing God’s Will. I agree that God can use the things He causes and He can use the things He simply permits (such as allowing us to sin, to make our own decisions) for His Will. He can work everything into His Will.
But Calvi-god can only handle the things He alone causes. He cannot handle any other factors than what He causes, than the things He has predetermined from the very beginning. Calvi-god is not as wise, powerful, omniscient, or sovereign as the God of the Bible, who can work many different factors into His plans, weaving all things together for good and for His plans, even the things He doesn’t cause.
And the biggest difference between “cause” and “permit” isn’t necessarily about getting His Will accomplished. It’s about who causes sin, wickedness, and people to go to hell. This is where the huge, critical difference is between cause and permit. If God causes sin and causes wickedness and causes people to go to hell then the vast majority of the Bible is a lie and a cosmic joke, and God is not who the Bible shows Him to be.
But if obedience and believing in Jesus and accepting salvation are choices that we have to make … and if, even though He calls us to obey and believe and accept eternal life, He allows (permits) us to sin, to reject Him, and to disobey … then the Bible makes sense and God is consistent. Because then, in His Word (as we see all throughout it), God can really say and mean that He truly does love all people, that He wants all people to be saved, that Jesus died for all, that we can seek Him, and that we can choose this day whom we will serve. And if it is our choice, He is truly just when He holds us accountable for our choices, when He lets us face the consequences of our choices. Because they are OUR choices!
Calvinism is an illogical, contradictory pile of nonsense that messes up the whole Bible, in order to make it all fit their misunderstandings of a few “Calvinist-sounding” verses. And this destroys God’s character and the Gospel Truth.
The God of the Bible can be trusted. Calvi-god cannot.
I’ve said this before on my blog: If someone can’t see how disastrously different Calvinism is from the Bible, then they either don’t really understand Calvinism or they don’t really understand the Bible.
There’s no other way to say it!
Heather,
Great to have you posting!
If you caught Leighton’s video showing that young Blaze reporter (Allie Stuckey) being interviewed by Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, you will be amused (unpleasantly).
She explains Calvinism to him and he is dumbstruck at how it sounds. Of course as an Orthodox Jew he rejects Jesus, but what he rejects is the Christian message that Christ died for the possible salvation for everyone…. if they only believe in Him (which is not believable to him). He “gets it”. He just doesnt want it.
But then she lays on the Calvinism and he no longer “gets it”. It is wildly crazy to him: square circles.
Now a Calvinist was say ….. “Yes FOH it is foolishness to him…like the Scripture says.”
Well anything is foolishness if you make it foolish.
I just saw Ben Shapiro’s interview with her last week!
When she started to explain Calvinism – he said “How do you square that circle”?
Ben Shapiro is a very logical person – I loved how instantly he saw through it. :-]
Great post Heather!
Just in case you don’t know – rhutchin has pulled that theory out of a magician’s hat before.
Its based on the premise that with our without Calvin’s god – events would unfold exactly the same – one way or the other.
And you can see his motives for the theory.
He can therefore argue that Calvin’s god can’t possibly be culpable or responsible for anything – since everything would occur exactly the same with or without the influence of Calvin’s god.
Its nothing more than a grasping at straws fantasy.
But it does show how inventive Calvinists can get! :-]
BTW: In the “Calvinism is intrinsically irrational” video – you see another inventive Calvinist there coming up with his pet theory – to try to relieve Calvin’s god from bearing any responsibility for what he AUTHORS.
This is another characteristic of Calvinists – a lot of them are highly inventive in this way.
But all of their inventions eventually collapse under the scrutiny of LOGIC.
Yes, yes and yes!
heather writes, “God can work everything into His Will.”
Then, presuming God does work all things into His will (per Ephesians 1, “God works all things after the counsel of His will”), it seems that we can agree that everything that happens is God’s will either because He is the direct cause of an outcome or He uses an outcome for His will. As God knew all this before He created the world, everything is working out as He planned.
Then, ” …the God of the Bible, who can work many different factors into His plans, weaving all things together for good and for His plans, even the things He doesn’t cause.”
The God of the Bible is the Calvinist God. Calvinism adds that God worked all this out before He even created the world. Once God creates the world, everything works out as God planned.
Then, “the biggest difference between “cause” and “permit” isn’t necessarily about getting His Will accomplished. It’s about who causes sin, wickedness, and people to go to hell. ”
In Job, we see that Satan could not act without God’s approval. That is no different than today. Satan can only place temptations in front of people after first getting God’s approval. God see all sin before it is affected and has the power to stop any sin He wants. God’s decisions were made before He created the world, so now God is affecting His plan through sinful people – the brothers of Joseph, the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Jews and Romans, and even Saul of Tarsus.
Then, “This is where the huge, critical difference is between cause and permit.”
OK. What is that difference to God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and sovereign over His creation?
Then, ” If God causes sin and causes wickedness…”
Yet, God caused Joseph to be delivered to Egypt, He punished Israel for its sin, He put Christ on the cross, and gave Saul of Tarsus influence among the Jews to put believers into prison, killing some. What sin or wickedness was unknown to God before it happened and not used by God for His purposes?
Then, “if obedience and believing in Jesus and accepting salvation are choices that we have to make…”
Are this not choices that people can only make if they have faith? Doesn’t faith come from hearing the gospel? Yet, all who people who physically hear the gsopel preached do not submit to Christ in faith. Obedience to Christ is a no-brainer and all should do this if they are free to make that choice, yet so many people do not. There is more here than you seem willing to acknowledge.
Then, “I’ve said this before on my blog: If someone can’t see how disastrously different Calvinism is from the Bible,”
Can we assume that you explain such things on your blog despite your refusal to do so here?
rhutchin
He uses an outcome for His will. As God knew all this before He created the world, everything is working out as He planned.
br.d
There you go Heather – this is another example.
“He uses an outcome for his will” – is language designed to distance Calvin’s god as the AUTHOR of every event.
I think you can guess which events those would be! :-]
br.d writes, ““He uses an outcome for his will” – is language designed to distance Calvin’s god as the AUTHOR of every event.”
No. It just separates God as the remote cause from man as the proximate cause. Thus, God decreed to send Joseph to Egypt and is the remote (and ultimate) cause of Joseph going to Egypt while Joseph’s brothers were the proximate cause (through whom God accomplished His plan). Judas’ betrayal of Jesus serves as another example of the remote/proximate cause distinction.
br.d
“He uses an outcome for his will” – is language designed to distance Calvin’s god as the AUTHOR of every event.”
rhutchin
No. It just separates God as the remote cause from man as the proximate cause.
br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
Of course, secondary causes retain all their properties and powers as intermediate causes, as the Reformed divines remind us, just as a stick retains its properties and powers which make it suitable for the purposes of the one who uses it. But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action.
Consistent Calvinism makes all men mere sticks with which God moves the stones. Yet very rarely do Calvinists admit this, and many more don’t even understand. All the talk of desires, means, secondary causes, etc. is designed to muddy the waters, so that people become lost in the murkiness and ashamed to admit their confusion. Like the admiring crowd, they are afraid to confess that they do not see the Emperor’s fine clothes, but only his naked torso. But surely all the esteemed authorities must be right, and every one knows that only idiots cannot see the glory of the king’s finery.
Most Calvinists hear all of the fawning over the fabulously clothed Calvinism, and do not want to be the one to say, ‘Uh, I don’t see it’. So they join in, and pretty soon, they all but forget the doubts and nagging questions that once left them uncertain.
br.d quoting Craig, “br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action.”
Craig should know better. It is because secondary causes are able to initiate action that they are held accountable for their actions. We see this with Cain in murdering his brother, the Assyrians whom God uses to punish Israel, Judas in betraying Jesus, and Saul of Tarsus in his persecution of the Jews. It is too bad that Craig relegates Scripture to secondary status to his personal opinion.
br.d quoting Craig, “br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action.”
rhutchin
Craig should know better. It is because secondary causes are able to initiate action that they are held accountable for their actions.
br.d
John Calvin – Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (pg 175)
-quote
“The hand of God rules the INTERIOR AFFECTIONS….nor would god have *EFFECTED* by the hand of man what he decreed, unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE* them will before they acted.”
br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action.”
rhutchin
Craig should know better. It is because secondary causes are able to initiate action that they are held accountable for their actions.
br.d
What Dr. Craig knows is LOGICAL – because in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the actions of secondary instruments (i.e. creatures) are determined/caused by factors outside of the creature’s control. Therefore the initiation of that action is also outside of the creatures control.
As universally understood – enunciated by the “Consequence Argument” (see Peter Van Inwagen)
If Theological Determinism is true, then all of our neurological-impulses, desires, choices, and actions are the inevitable unavoidable consequence of immutable decrees, set in motion at the foundation of the world. And our every creaturely function is fated to occur at a specified time. Also, at the moment they are fated to occur, they do so framed and modulated by the state of nature, which exists at that time in which they occur. And the state of nature which exists at any time is likewise fully determined.
But it is not up to us what supernatural forces/decrees are set in motion millennia before we were born. Neither are any neurological-impulses, desires, choices, and actions decreed to infallibly occur up to us. And neither is the time these are fated to occur up to us. Nor is the state of nature, which exists at any time (including our own) up to us. Therefore the consequences of these things are not up to us.
Ha-ha-ha! Rhutchin, you are funny! Accusing me of refusing to point out how different Calvinism is from the Bible when all I’ve done is continuously point out how different Calvinism is from the Bible! Ha-ha-ha! (And as I said before, all my heavy, Scripture-backed stuff is on my blog. But I assume you won’t read it because you won’t be able to comment on it there. And I don’t think you’ll read what you can’t comment on. Because that would involve listening more than talking.)
And no, we can’t agree that everything that happens is His Will, as in He causes it to happen. Because the Bible says that He works all things out for His Will, not that He causes it all for His Will, not that everything that happens is His Will. It’s not that He plans everything that happens; it’s that He takes all that happens and works it into His plans. He lets us make our choices, and then works it into His plans. But He doesn’t pre-plan or cause the choices we make. It’s like (for a silly illustration) the difference between buying ingredients and making the dinner I preplanned to make … and letting my kids pick out ingredients and then turning it all into something good, even though I didn’t preplan it or cause it to happen that way. (And of course, all illustrations fall short at some point. So don’t go feeling like if you can find problems with this example then you won the theological argument.)
And Satan (when it came to Job) was allowed by God to choose how to attack Job, within boundaries God set up around Job’s life. But this doesn’t mean God caused Satan to do what he did. Or that God preplanned what Satan would do. Or that He willed Satan to do it. But God did give permission to Satan to act freely within boundaries, as He allows for us too. And God can take whatever we do and work it into His plans, into something good.
And as I said, the difference to God between whether it’s “God causes sin” or “God permits sin” is that one turns Him into an untrustworthy, illogical, contradictory monster (Calvinism! Which says God causes sin but punishes us for it, regardless of how you try to hide or deny it.) and the other doesn’t. One completely alters God’s character and the Bible, and the other doesn’t.
If I was God and knew that I didn’t cause sin, yet someone kept insisting that I cause all the sins that happen, I’d be incredibly displeased! So maybe instead of asking me what difference it makes to God, you should be asking God this. If you’re willing to listen, He’ll tell you.
Amen.
heather writes, “Accusing me of refusing to point out how different Calvinism is from the Bible when all I’ve done is continuously point out how different Calvinism is from the Bible! ”
But, heather, you have failed to cite the Scriptures on which you base your conclusions. How can you say that you have pointed out how Calvinism is different from the Bible when you never cite where that difference occurs in the Bible? perhaps, you do this in your blog – could you provide the address for your blog and I will check it out.
Then, “we can’t agree that everything that happens is His Will, as in He causes it to happen. Because the Bible says that He works all things out for His Will, not that He causes it all for His Will,”
Maybe we can agree that God is in control of all that happens given that He can affect the outcome he seeks.
Then, ” It’s not that He plans everything that happens; it’s that He takes all that happens and works it into His plans.”
Yet, His plans were finalized before He created the world. Should I assume that you buy into an Open Theist type philosophy where God does not know the future. However, given that God can affect any outcome He wants from evil events, our disagreement seems to be a timing issue – does God make His decisions in the past or what to make those decisions in the course of time? Either way, God’s decisions are the same.
Then, “Satan (when it came to Job) was allowed by God to choose how to attack Job, within boundaries God set up around Job’s life.”
The Calvinist would say that God knew exactly what Satan would do while you say that God did not know what Satan would do and only learned this when He observed Satan’s choices.
I think the omniscience issue – What does God know and when does He know it – is the issue between us. If so, that is fine – we have resolved a major distinction you make with Calvinism.
And here are a couple of the specific posts on my blog that explain the disastrous difference between Calvinism and the Bible:
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/04/why-is-calvinism-so-dangerous.html
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/04/if-calvinism-is-true-then-god-is-liar.html
And, Rhutchin, if you want to see my Scripture to back up my views, why I say Calvinism is totally different from the Bible, here is my post, “Why Is Calvinism So Dangerous?” (with a little taken out for space)
So … Why is Calvinism so dangerous?
Because it teaches the opposite of what the Bible teaches!
Calvinism thinks it correctly understands the Word. But what it does is twist each verse until it supports its view of predestination, of God micromanaging everything (their definition of “sovereignty”), and of “total human depravity” where people are so depraved that no one can think about, want, or come to God unless God makes them do it (which is absolutely not in the Bible. In fact, the exact opposite is in the Bible. God calls us over and over again to seek Him, and He says He will hold us accountable if we resist Him or ignore Him).
[Hey, Calvinists … Do you want a test to see what’s driving your view of this issue? Pray and ask God to reveal to you if you are wrong in your understanding of this issue, if you are reading the Word wrong, trying to make it fit your own ideas of what it says. Tell God that you want to know the truth and give Him permission to open your eyes to truth, even if it means finding out you’ve been wrong this whole time.
Now … how did it make you feel to think about doing that? Did you get offended at the suggestion that Calvinism is wrong? Did you bristle and stiffen your neck, as in “I’m not praying that! I know I’m right!”? Did you scoff? Do you want to throw away everything I am saying – and going to say – because you’ve predetermined that I don’t know what I’m talking about, simply because I disagree with your view? Did you start coming up with all sorts of reasons for why you’re right and rehearsing all the theological arguments that “support” Calvinism?
Are you more concerned with protecting and defending your view than you are with God’s opinion of it? How much is your pride driving your theology? Are you willing for God to correct you if you are wrong? Do you want to know His truth more than you want to cling to your pride and your feeling of intellectual and theological “superiority”?
What’s in your heart?
So now, pray and ask God to reveal truth to you, to show you if you’ve been wrong. Determine in your heart that you really do want to know the truth, no matter the cost. Don’t just think about praying it. DO IT!]
Many Christians don’t want to get into this issue. It’s messy and uncomfortable and confusing. And so we straddle the fence, saying “Oh, it doesn’t really matter what we think about this as long as the Gospel is preached and people come to Jesus.”
But does it really “not matter”?
We also don’t want to get into this issue because Calvinists have made it seem like their view of the Gospel is absolutely “what the Bible says.” We’ve been fed that line so many times by the multitudes of popular Calvinist preachers and authors that we don’t even think to doubt it. We don’t even realize that they could possibly be wrong. We just keep drinking the Kool-Aid we’re given.
But I think it’s definitely worth doubting. Worth thinking about deeply. Worth researching. Worth debating.
And to be fair, most Calvinists do not have some sinister plan to lead people astray. Yes, some of them are smug and dogmatic and condescending and rude. But most are truly good, humble people who are simply trying their best to honor God and His Word. Some of our favorite church-friends are Calvinists. They are some of the best, most kind-hearted, godly people we know. And it was never an issue between us or between others in the congregation because no one ever pushed their views excessively and dogmatically. (Not until our new pastor came along.)
So I am not necessarily speaking against the average Calvinist, but against Calvinism and the dogmatic Calvinist teachers. I think most Calvinists in the congregation are just good people doing their best to honor God and to be true to the Word. It’s just that they’ve been taught a view that has added little twists and tweaks to Scripture until it “fits so nicely” with Calvinism that they don’t even know to question it. And they have been taught that to be a good, God-honoring, humble Christian, they have to accept this Calvinist teaching and not dig too deeply for reasonable answers because it offends God and because, as mere humans, they can’t understand it anyway. (That’s how I started to get sucked into Calvinism in my high-school/college years. We were taught that Calvinism is just the way it is and that to be a good humble Christian meant accepting it. And so I humbly, faithfully did.)
But once you start really researching Calvinism and what the Bible really says, without twists or tweaks, it all falls apart.
And maybe that’s what makes it so dangerous: Calvinists truly believe it and think they are honoring God and the Word by spreading it.
So let’s see some of what Calvinism says and how different it is from what the Bible teaches. (I’ll add verses where appropriate.) And ask yourself if it really “doesn’t matter.”
1.
The Bible says … Jesus died for all, loves all, and wants all men to be saved
(John 3:16-17 and 5:24, Titus 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10, Romans 5:18 and 10:13. This first point alone is really all you need to see how twisted and dangerous Calvinism is.)
Calvinism says … Jesus died only for the elect, loves only the elect, and only wanted the elect to be saved
[To make this work, Calvinists say “all men” and “whosoever” and “the world” really mean “just the elect” or “all KINDS of men, but not ALL men.” Lots of verses to twist. Calvinist authors will literally say, “Jesus does not love everybody and did not die for everyone.”
But look at 2 Peter 2:1. This verse says that Jesus’s death even bought the false teachers, the very ones who deny Him. Jesus’s death paid for all men’s sins, even those who “bring destruction on themselves.”
If Calvinism is correct, then either God is lying about Jesus “buying” the false teachers … or God “elects” false teachers because Jesus only bought the “elect” with His blood, and those guys were “bought” by Jesus, according to the verse. (And then, of course, the “destruction” they brought on themselves would have to be something other than hell, because the “elect” can’t go to hell).
So which is it: Lying God or Elected False Teachers?
And if Calvinism is correct, then God is lying about whatever “destruction” they brought on themselves. They didn’t do it; God did. For His glory … right, Calvinists!?! So why would He give them credit for saying they “brought destruction on themselves,” making it sound like they power over their choices and some sort of effect over their lives. Wouldn’t that be “stealing God’s glory” and saying God is not as sovereign and “in control” as Calvinists say He is!?!
You know, I kinda wish Calvinists would stop “sneaking” their theology into churches, softening it up to make it more palatable, to infiltrate deeper and deeper without being noticed until it’s too late. Have the guts and integrity to honestly tell hurting people and God-seekers what you really believe: “Well, I don’t know if God loves you or if Jesus died for you or if you are one of the elect. He only loves and died for and saves a few select people. But there’s nothing you can do about it anyway. Your eternity is already sealed. And none of us will truly know who’s elected and who’s not until eternity. So best of luck to you. May you win the ‘salvation lottery’!”
It would be a lot easier to identify them if they just said it like they really think it is.]
2.
The Bible says … God is not willing that any man should perish, and no one is beyond God’s saving grace.
(2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11, Romans 11:32, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Romans 3:23-24, Titus 2:11)
Calvinism says … God predestined most people for hell, they were never offered grace
[Calvinism will try to weasel out of this one by saying that God doesn’t really predestine the unelect for hell; He just doesn’t elect them for heaven, which means they end up in hell. HOGWASH! It’s the same thing. It’s just trying to soften up a terrible belief, to make it seem like God doesn’t really predestine people for hell. But if God is the one who preplans who goes to heaven, and the rest have to go to hell because He didn’t plan for them to go to heaven, then He indeed preplans who goes to hell. Don’t buy into Calvinism’s double-talk. They talk out of both sides of their mouth and expect people to accept it.]
3.
The Bible says … We are responsible for our choices, sins, and unbelief
(Rom 10:3 and 11:20,23, Joshua 24:15, Matthew 23:37, James 1:13-15, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and 2:10)
Calvinism says … God causes all sin and unbelief, but we are still held accountable for it.
[Calvinism expects you to accept the absurd, illogical idea that God causes sin and unbelief but is not responsible for it, and that even though we don’t choose to be unbelievers, according to them, we can still be justly held accountable for it. It’s more double-talk and nonsense. If God causes it, He’s responsible for it. And there would be nothing just or righteous about holding us responsible for something He causes. It’s nonsense. But when you question Calvinists on this, they say, “Well, we might not like it but we have to believe it because it’s what the Bible says. Who are we to question God!?! And you won’t be able to really understand it till eternity anyway, so don’t think too hard about it.” They shame you into not disagreeing with them, making you feel unhumble if you do.]
4.
The Bible says … When we repent and believe, we become saved and receive the Holy Spirit
(Acts 2:38, Ephesians 1:13)
Calvinism says … The “elect” are prechosen to be saved, then the Holy Spirit comes to the elect to make them repent and believe. Being chosen comes before salvation, and receiving the Holy Spirit comes before repentance and belief.
[In many areas, they ignore or explain away the verses that clearly contradict them. And they build their theology on a collection of vague verse or verses taken out of context, trying to make their view sound legitimate.]
5.
The Bible says … God expects us to seek Him
(Amos 5:4, Isaiah 55:6, Deuteronomy 4:29, Hebrews 11:6, Acts 17:27)
Calvinism says … No one can seek God unless God makes them seek
[Calvinists support this idea by saying we are “dead people,” that we are like dead bodies who can’t do anything unless God makes us do it. But this is simply a ridiculously bad and wrong analogy. We are not physically dead, just spiritually dead, which means we are separated from God. Our brains still work, and God expects us to use our brains to seek Him.
Calvinists also get this idea by reading into Romans 3:10-11. They say it means we are so depraved that we can’t possible want, seek or believe in God, unless He makes us do it. But the verses don’t say that. They are simply saying that we are self-centered by nature and don’t generally desire or seek the things of God, and that we can’t do anything to save ourselves. We have no righteousness of our own to earn our salvation, and neither will our bloodline save us. And this is why God has to be the one to get our attention, to make Himself known, and to make salvation possible. He wants us to see what’s missing in our lives, to desire Him, to seek Him, and to accept the gift of salvation He made possible. And if we refuse Him, He can hold us accountable because He has made Himself abundantly clear through His creation – Romans 1:20.]
6.
The Bible says … Satan blinds eyes, but Jesus takes the veil away when we turn to Him. (2 Corinthians 4:4 and 3:16) And “receive” and “believe” (in the concordance) are active, not passive. We do them. “Receive” means to reach out and grab ahold of what is being offered to you (salvation). And “believe” is to let yourself be persuaded by something (the truth) and to commit to it.
(Romans 1:5, 5:11, 5:17, 8:15, 10:4, 10:13, Ephesians 1:13, John 1:12)
Calvinism says … God blinds eyes (causes the unelect to not believe in Him) and opens eyes. If He doesn’t open your eyes, you can’t find Him. He causes the elect to believe in and receive Jesus, with no response needed on our parts. It’s done to us, not by us.
[I think they partly think this because Acts 16:14 talks about God opening Lydia’s heart to believe Paul’s message. Calvinists say this means that God caused her to believe. But if you look at that verse, you’ll see that she was already a worshipper of God, a believer. Most likely, it’s that God caused her to see the need to be baptized, because the very next thing she does is get her family baptized. And Calvinists will point to Luke 24:45, about God opening the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures. But once again, this isn’t causing unbelievers to believe. It’s opening the minds of those who already believe to help them grow in their wisdom and faith.]
7.
The Bible says … Generally, according to the concordance, a “hardened” heart is retribution for having first hardened our own hearts and resisted God for so long, even after He’s been patient and long-suffering with us.
(Romans 9:18. And in John 12:37-39, “they would not believe” resulted in “they could not believe.” And in Ezekiel 20:21-25 and Romans 1:21-24, the people rebel against God, so He lets them become hardened and defiled, handing them over to their own sinful rebellion. A simple study of what the concordance says about many of the words Calvinists hinge Calvinism on will defeat the idea of Calvinism.)
Calvinism says … God chooses whose hearts to harden and whose to turn to Him, with no input/responsibility on our parts.
[2 Peter 3:9 says God is patient with us, wanting everyone to be saved. But what’s patience for, if He’s already predestined who goes to heaven and if He controls when we get saved? And notice in Romans 11:4-5 how God chooses His people. The people chose whether they would serve Baal or not. Then God chooses those who did not worship Baal. The people’s choice of whom they worshipped affected whether God chose them or not. And for further biblical proof that WE choose to harden our hearts, see Zechariah 7:11-13. Why would God get angry with them if He caused them to resist Him? He must like making Himself angry, because He’s the only one responsible for anything in this world. According to Calvinism.]
8.
The Bible says … We are to evangelize because it’s how people will hear the Gospel so that they can believe. That by hearing the Gospel, we can believe, and by believing, we inherit eternal life.
(Romans 10:14, John 20:31)
Calvinism says … Evangelize because God told you to, even though God’s already decided where everyone will go. The elect will be saved and the unelect will be damned, no matter what. But we still have to obey God’s command to spread the Gospel.
[Makes no sense! Calvinism says that we are elected before we can even respond to the Gospel, and that we can’t respond to the Gospel or believe in Jesus unless God first regenerates us and gives us the Holy Spirit.
So then, why should we spread the Gospel if it can have no influence over a person anyway, because their eternities have already been decided?
But the Bible says, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31)
So according to the Bible, the very reason God gave us the Scriptures was so that we could learn about Jesus and believe in Him, and that by believing, we could inherit eternal life. Biblically, it’s “read the Bible, learn about Jesus, want Jesus as your Lord and Savior, believe in Jesus and put your faith in Him, get the Holy Spirit and inherit eternal life.”
But Calvinism flips that all around. It’s “get chosen for eternal life before you ever encounter Jesus or the Gospels, then God gives you the Holy Spirit to regenerate you and to make you want Jesus, and now you can understand the Gospel, which really had no effect on your salvation anyway because you were elected/saved before you could read, understand, or respond to the Gospel. There is no ‘choosing’ to believe in Jesus. You believe because God made you believe. And you inherit eternal life even before God makes you believe in Jesus.”
And here’s something else for Calvinists to consider: If we have to obey God’s command to evangelize, it means we can disobey. And if we can choose between obeying and disobeying, we are right back to free-will, to us having a choice.
On a different but similar note: I also think Calvinism affects our prayer life. If Calvinists believe that God causes everything that happens, they might not see prayer accurately. After all, why pray if everything’s already been planned and if prayer doesn’t make a difference because humans can’t affect anything that happens?
Calvinists will say that prayer is about showing our dependence on God, about humbling ourselves before Him, about connecting with Him. And yes, that’s all a part of it. But I also believe that the Bible clearly shows that prayer does have an effect on what happens. I believe God has chosen to work through and with mankind’s cooperation and prayers, to a degree. Prayer is what activates God to do His Will. And without it, God doesn’t always intervene. Prayer is not just for show; it really does matter and make a difference and affect what happens. For more on this, see my Bible Study lesson on Prayer and see “Prayer, Faith, and God’s Will” (about the times prayer doesn’t seem to “work”).]
9.
The Bible says … God shows His love and His justice by sending Jesus to the cross to pay for our sins.
(Romans 3:25-26, Romans 5:8)
Calvinism says … God shows His love by saving the elect (and by caring for the unelect on earth) and He shows His justice by damning the unelect to hell.
[They change God’s love from one kind to another, saying that God shows His love to the elect by saving them and to the “unelect” by caring for them while they’re on earth. But God Himself says He shows His love by sending Jesus to the cross to pay for our sins. And contrary to Calvinism, He doesn’t say He shows His justice by sending the “unelect” to hell. He says He shows His justice by sending Jesus to the cross to pay for our sins. Why is this so hard to understand? Clearly, since Calvinists believe God’s saving love saves the elect, they can’t use His love as the reason He damns the unelect to hell. So they have to find different “godly-sounding reason” for why God would damn the unelect to hell. And I guess calling it “His justice” sounds godly enough to make it believable.]
10.
The Bible shows that … “Sovereignty” means that God is the highest authority there is. There is no one above Him and no one He is accountable to. He has the power to do whatever He wants. But I believe part of what He wants is to allow us to make decisions, within any boundaries He sets up. And, being sovereign, He knows what we will choose to do and how to work it for good. He also knows how to manipulate circumstances to encourage us to get on the path He wants us on, but He doesn’t over-ride our free-will. He calls us to obey and believe, but the final choice is ours.
(Such as when He blinded Saul on the road to Damascus, calling Saul to become Paul. He didn’t override Saul’s right to decide, He just made a very strong case for why Saul should believe in Him, making Himself so clear that Saul was compelled to become a believer.)
He holds all things in His hands, is aware of everything, and knows how to work everything into His plans. Sometimes He works out His will by causing things to happen (but never by causing sin), and sometimes He works out His will by just allowing things to happen, such as letting us choose to sin/disobey and then working it into His plans. But He can and will work everything – even the things He lets us choose to do – into something good.
(Remember that in Job’s story, God didn’t cause the tragedies that hit Job. God let Satan pick the tragedies, within boundaries. God doesn’t always “cause.” Many times, He simply “allows.”)
Calvinism says … “Sovereignty” means that God preplans and causes everything that happens, even sin and unbelief, for His plans and glory.
[So God causes the very sin that He died to save us from? And He causes unbelief, even though He calls us to believe in Him over and over again? Yep, makes perfect sense!
Did you know that the NIV has the word “sovereign” in it almost 300 times. But it’s not in the KJV anywhere. Where the NIV says “Sovereign Lord,” the KJV simply says “Lord.” For some reason they felt the need to add it to Scripture. And keep in mind that the definition of “sovereign” refers to the position a person is in – it’s being the highest authority/ruler there is – but it doesn’t specify how the person uses their authority.
Calvinists build their whole theological framework on the belief that “sovereignty” means “micromanaging,” that since God is “all powerful,” He always uses His power all the time to control everything. But “sovereign” basically just means “the one who is in ultimate control over all,” not “He has to use His power to control/cause everything that happens.” This is adding things to the definition of “sovereignty.” Sovereignty doesn’t mean God has to control everything, but that He is in a position to control everything, that He gets the final say on everything, that He is accountable to no one because there is no one above Him.
When you misunderstand “sovereignty,” your whole theological view will be wrong from the very beginning because you are trying to force Scripture to fit your view of sovereignty, instead of simply correcting your view of sovereignty to fit Scripture.
Essentially, I think most Calvinists are trying to be humble when they view “sovereignty” as “God controls and causes everything.” They are trying to lift God up as high as they can and to lower humans as low as they can. But if their view of “sovereignty” and of how God acts is contradicting Scripture – and they refuse to consider if they’re wrong and to correct it – how humble are they really?]
(See “What Does ‘God Is Sovereign’ Mean?” And see Tony Evan’s sermon on God’s sovereignty, which says that sometimes God causes things and sometimes He just allows things, but that He holds all things in His hands and works it all out for good. Also see “Connecting With God For A Breakthrough” – a good biblical view of man’s responsibility and God’s actions.)
11.
The Bible says … God is glorified when people praise Him, trust Him, believe in Him, preach the good news, obey Him, etc.
(Psalm 29:1-2, 86:12, 96, 115:1- glorify God for His lovingkindness and truth, Isaiah 42:12, Matthew 5:16, John 15:8, Romans 15:9- glorify Him for His mercy, 1 Cor. 10:31, 2 Cor. 4:15- spreading grace and thanksgiving glorifies God, 2 Cor. 9:13, 2 Thess. 1:11-12)
Calvinism says … It glorifies God to send people to hell.
[This is simply Calvinists trying to find a “good” explanation for why God “predestines” people to hell. They say everything God does is for His glory. And so we have to simply accept that if He predestines men to hell, it must be for His glory somehow. Find me the verse that says this! It’s simply more convoluted reasoning to try to make their view legitimate. And if God causes everything for His glory – even sin, unbelief, and “predestining” people for hell – Calvinists would have to conclude that murder glorifies God … and abortion and child abuse and suicide and rape and every other sin out there. Because, after all, God “causes” everything that happens for His glory. Right!?! Why then should we take a stand against any of this? Why be concerned for those going to hell? Wouldn’t that be fighting against the things God is doing to bring Himself “glory”? Wouldn’t it, Calvinists!?!]
12.
The Bible says … Jesus’s death accomplished what it was supposed to, buying salvation for all men so that we can believe and be saved. Salvation is a gift, bought by Jesus’s blood, that we choose to accept or reject.
(1 Timothy 2:6 and 4:10, Romans 5:18)
Calvinism says … God didn’t give people the choice to accept or reject Jesus, because if people could reject Him, it would be a waste of His blood. And if we claim we can “accept Jesus,” then we are “working for our salvation,” unhumbly believing we can earn salvation. The only way it can be all God’s doing is if we do nothing to get it, not even “accept it.” The only way for Him to be in total
control is for Him to be the one who chooses the elect and causes them to believe.
[There is not one verse in the Bible that teaches any of this. It’s purely man-made reasoning to support a flawed theology. Jesus’s blood was never wasted. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. And how can accepting a free gift that was made available to us because God planned for it and sacrificed His life for it be considered “working for/earning salvation”? On the contrary, accepting a gift we know we could never create or earn for ourselves – eternal life in heaven – is an act of humility, of thankfulness, of love.]
13.
The Bible says … Some “predestination” verses are about God predestining believers to grow to be more like Christ and to bring God glory, not about God predestining “the elect” for heaven.
(Ephesians 1:11-12. And Romans 8:28-30 says those God foreknows – those whom He foreknows will become believers – are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. And other “predestination” verses, I believe, are actually about things like Israel’s destiny, specific biblical people, God’s general plans for mankind, God choosing which generation would be the first to have Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and – as a couple writers suggest – about God predestining the means of salvation, forgiveness of sins through Jesus’s death. You have to look at each one in context. I believe that every verse that sounds like “predestined to heaven or hell” can and should be read in one of these other ways.)
Calvinism says … “Predestination” verses are always about God predestining if we go to heaven or hell.
(No wonder they have so much support for their view. I wonder, how can Calvinists ignore all the verses that say Jesus died for all, God loves all, salvation is available to all, God wants us to seek Him, we have to choose between obedience and obedience, etc. – all those many verses that clearly contradict Calvinism – and they zero in on a just a couple verses about predestination and election that seem to support Calvinism, building their whole theology on a misunderstanding of those verses? It’s strange. Instead of questioning those few “Calvinist” verses, studying what they really mean until it falls in line with the rest of the Word, they alter what the rest of the Bible says to uphold their misunderstanding of those few verses. Really, it’s amazing!)
14.
The Bible says … Some verses about salvation, according to the concordance, are not about eternal salvation. They are about God planning to spare believers from the wrath that He will pour out on the ungodly in the end times.
(1 Thessalonians 5:8-9, Romans 13:11, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 1:5. Particularly of note is 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which says “God chose you to be saved.” This sounds very “predestined to heaven,” until you see that the concordance doesn’t say this “saved” is about eternal salvation. It says this “saved” is about God promising to spare believers from the upcoming, end-times wrath.)
Calvinism says … Verses about “chosen to be saved” are always used to prove that God chooses/predestines who gets eternal salvation and who doesn’t.
(If you research carefully, you’ll see that many of the so-called “predestination” verses are not really “predestined to heaven or hell” verses at all.)
15.
The Bible calls us to search the Scriptures, to be discerning about what we are taught, to carefully and correctly handle the Word.
(2 Timothy 2:15, Acts 17:11)
Calvinists tell us that we don’t have to understand predestination or Calvinism, but that we need to simply accept it because it’s “what the Bible says.” And they will make you feel like an unhumble Christian if you question this view, accusing you of rebelling against God’s Word.
[As I pointed out earlier, watch out for their double-talk. They speak out of both sides of their mouth and expect you to accept it without question. They’ll say “I’m not saying God predestines people to hell. I’m just saying He doesn’t predestine them for heaven.” And “I’m not saying God is responsible for sin. I’m saying that God is sovereign and causes all things for His purposes, even sin, but we are still responsible for it.” And “I’m not saying God doesn’t love everyone, just that God has chosen to show His love to the elect by saving them.” Lots and lots of nonsense!]
16.
The Bible can be read and understood by all, and it’s quite clear and consistent in its teachings. It makes sense.
Only Calvinists can really understand the Bible because they “know the code” (my own wording, not theirs), like claiming that “whoever” and “all” and “world” really mean “the elect.” And their views only seem valid by building their theology around the few Bible verses that sound “predestination” at first, and then by explaining away or twisting the multitudes of verses that contradict Calvinism. But their theological view falls apart in the face of Scripture as a whole and in light of how God acts in the rest of the Bible. In the end, Calvinism creates many more questions (unanswerable questions) than it answers, and it creates tons of illogical contradictions about Scripture and God’s character. This is why they have to always come back to “You don’t have to understand it. You just have to accept it because it’s what the Bible says.”
(Umm … No! It’s not!)
17.
And lastly, I think Calvinism overemphasizes God’s wrath/glory, while underemphasizing His love. In fact, they believe God doesn’t even really love all people, only the elect. They believe it brings God glory to predestined most people to hell. And since it’s about His glory, we just have to accept this teaching. Because we are too tiny to understand it.
But of course we can’t understand it. You can’t understand an unbiblical, imbalanced view.
Yes, God’s glory should be held up high. The highest. But to do this, Calvinists reduce humans too low. They base our value only on the glory we can being God.
But … God Himself believes we have value and He loves us tremendously, enough to send Jesus to die for all of our sins, no matter how “low and insignificant” we are in comparison to Him. Just so we could have a relationship with Him in heaven. Because, I believe, He wanted it. He wanted us!
Here is an excerpt from my “Letter To Our Elders” post:
Another reason I don’t care for our pastor’s preaching is that it’s all information for the head, theological academic stuff. It’s not preaching for the heart, for the hurting heart, for life. There’s no encouragement in there, no “God loves you and you matter to Him,” no “let’s figure out how to get through these hard trials of life together,” etc. It’s always just more theological and academic information for the mind.
Calvinist teaching is always loaded with how depraved we are, how insignificant we should feel before God, how virtually worthless we are apart from the glory God gets through us, about how God has predetermined everything, about how we have no effect on God or on our lives, about how our choices are not really our choices because we are just acting out the parts God’s already written for us, about how our eternity has already been decided for us and we can’t change it, and about how God causes everything but we are still accountable. And how we don’t have to understand how that works, we just have to accept it! Or else we’ll be dishonoring God. (Which is kinda ironic because if we bring God dishonor it would have to be because He caused us to bring Him dishonor, because according to Calvinism God causes everything.)
But sometimes, we just need to be reminded of how much God loves us, how valuable we are to Him, how He can and will help us through this hard life. But when the sermons are all about God being so far above us, about how low in the dirt we should view ourselves, about God only being concerned with His own glory and how we should only be concerned with that too … well, it’s really hard to connect with a God like that, to want a relationship with a God like that, to feel like He wants a relationship with us.
Sometimes we don’t need another theological beating. Sometimes we just need a heavenly hug.
And it’s interesting because Calvinist pastors usually avoid messages about how God loves you and Jesus died for you. They have to avoid these because they don’t know, according to their Calvinism, if God loves everyone in the audience or if Jesus died for everyone in the audience. Because, according to Calvinists, God only loved the elect and Jesus only died for the elect. So you won’t hear those general “God loves you” kinds of messages from them.
And Calvinists are not about God’s love. They’re all about God’s glory, our insignificance, His ultimate control, our complete inability to do anything. And I kinda see that it’s true. Calvinists like to remind us regularly about how we are only here for God’s glory, so that He can glorify Himself through us. I have no problem with God being glorified and with bringing Himself glory in what He does (that’s only appropriate), but sometimes it’s nice to hear that He made us because He loves us, because He wants a relationship with us, not just because He is looking for another way to bring Himself glory.
I don’t think God made us just for His glory. I think He also made us for His enjoyment. Because He wants people to love, and He wants people to love Him. Because it brings Him joy. I found a verse – 2 Corinthians 5:4-5 – about one of the reasons why God made us, and this passage doesn’t say it’s only all about His glory: “… we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who made us for this very purpose …” To me, this sounds like the very reason God made us was so that we could have eternal life in heaven with Him. He wants us in heaven with Him. And that is the reason He made us. Even though He is glorified through everything, I think one reason He made us is because He wanted us, not just because He needed to glorify Himself by creating us. And that’s a God I want to get close to and to love; One who wants to get close to me because He loves me.
What is it that Paul prayed about for the Ephesians?
“And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge – that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:17-19)
God is not just about using us to get more glory. God was completely complete in Himself before we ever came along. He needs nothing from us.
But He does want us! He wants us to know His love fully, deeply. Knowing His love is what will fill us completely with the fullness of God. Not reducing ourselves to such tiny, insignificant worms who are only here because God wanted to bring Himself more glory.
God made us out of love! God wants us to come to Him, to spend eternity with Him, because of love!
My heart is aching for some good, godly encouragement about God’s love. For some practical messages about how He’ll carry us through the hard times and how His love for us spurs us on to love Him more, etc. I don’t need more academic information, especially when it’s loaded with Calvinism. My soul is drying up there. Ugh! But that’s my own personal thoughts about this. And yet, I know I’m not the only one thinking it. Ugh! Ugh! Ugh!
Calvinism is dangerous because it draws people away from the heart of God, from the Truth about His love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, character, Jesus’s sacrifice, etc.
And this is just a little bit of it.
Calvinists believe they are being true to the Word and that those who disagree with Calvinism are not. They will say that we are ignoring “hard truths” taught in Scripture – like God is all-controlling and we have no control of our own and God predestines people to hell for a reason – because we don’t like those ideas, because they make us uncomfortable or we can’t understand them. And so they say we ignore Scripture or twist it to make it say something that we like better, to give us more “control.”
But as you can see, I haven’t twisted Scripture at all. In fact, I am simply stating it just as it is, no twists, no changing the meanings of words (like “all” and “whoever”), no confusing conclusions that force me to say “But you don’t have to understand it; you just have to accept it.”
It’s Calvinism that twists Scripture, that reads into it things that aren’t there, that uses confusing double-talk, that ignores the verses that clearly contradict it, that changes the meanings of words, that takes verses out of context, that comes up with convoluted reasoning for its views (such as “If people could reject Jesus, it would be a waste of His blood” and “It glorifies God to put people in hell”), etc.
Instead of being able to point to Bible verses that clearly teach their views, they have to create biblical support by mashing together various verses, oftentimes taken out of context or slightly altered to fit what they want it to say. And they take their own ideas of things – such as their views of what “ordains” and “sovereignty” mean – and build Scripture around it, instead of building their ideas around Scripture. (You can see this in their arguments like, “If God really loved all people then He would save all people; but since all people are not saved, it must mean He doesn’t love all people the same.” Instead of believing, as the Bible says, that God shows His love by sending Jesus to die for us so that He could offer salvation to all of us, they view it as “He saves those He loves, which means He only really loves those He has chosen to save – the elect.” And so they have to redefine “God’s love” and “the world” and “whosoever” in John 3:16 to make it fit with their idea that God saves those whom He loves and only really loves those whom He saves. When all along, God says He shows His love by sending Jesus to pay for our sins, buying us all the opportunity for eternal life, but it’s up to us to accept it.)
Calvinists are master manipulators, trying to validate a confusing view that contradicts what the rest of the Bible clearly, plainly, and consistently tells us about salvation and grace and Jesus’s sacrifice and God’s character and His attributes, etc. No wonder they always have to end with “You don’t have to understand it; you just have to accept it. But it will all make sense in eternity. We humans are just too limited to truly understand it now.”
I wonder if Calvinist theologians have unconsciously complicated Scripture – if they came up with all their convoluted reasonings and “hidden meanings” – because it feels more “intelligent” that way – as if the more complicated and “hidden” the truths of Scripture are, the more intelligent they are to understand it, to have discovered what God’s really trying to say “between the lines.” And being so “wise” about difficult teachings and being willing to accept these difficult teachings in faith makes them feel more humble, like they are willing to accept distasteful and confusing teachings that we “stubborn, blinded, prideful” believers aren’t willing to accept.
But I think sometimes we can miss the forest for the trees. I wonder if Calvinists fail to see the clear teachings of Scripture because they are trying to complicate it, because it makes them feel more intelligent and more humble. I wonder if the Calvinist theologians unconsciously think, “Scripture can’t really be that clear and simple and straightforward, can it? That even the most simple-minded, common person can understand it? No … it has to be more complicated than that, and so it takes us super-minds to understand it, to tell the simple people what God’s really trying to say.”
But sometimes, God uses the foolish things, the simple things, to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). The “wise” can’t see the simple things – the plain truth of Scripture – because they are too busy being “wise.” And so the plain truth of Scripture sounds like foolishness to them. And they actually unconsciously elevate their intellect and humility, while all along talking about how tiny, low, and insignificant we humans are and how humble it makes us to accept, in faith, the confusing, illogical things they teach us.
If this doesn’t make you deep-down-in-your-soul angry, if you don’t see how Calvinism twists what Scripture really says, then you either don’t really understand Calvinism or you don’t really understand the Gospel. (I’m not saying this condescendingly, but matter-of-factly. There’s just really no other way to put it. And to be honest, I myself didn’t really understand the Gospel for a long time – because I was trying to force it into a “Calvinist” mindset.)
And considering all the differences I’ve shown you – about how differently they view Jesus’s sacrifice, God’s character, salvation, man’s responsibility, etc. – can anyone really say that it “doesn’t matter” what we believe about this?
It matters.
It matters greatly!
Our view of God and faith and salvation and the Gospel will be greatly affected by our view of this. And it’s worth really studying until you come to an answer on it. Don’t ever let a Calvinist church or preacher or author make you feel like a bad Christian if you doubt or disagree with Calvinism.
(Honestly, the more I learn about how twisted Calvinism is, the more angry I get and the more I want to cry – to literally sit down and weep – about how it’s destroying the Gospel Truth, the character of God, and people’s faith. That’s why it was time for me to stop tolerating it at my church and to finally speak up. And it may be time for me to remove my name from membership at our church, something I’ve been contemplating for years. I can’t support our pastor’s view of Scripture and God and salvation. It breaks my heart to hear God and the Gospel preached this way! To see the grace of God limited so much. To see Jesus’s precious sacrifice reduced to a “gift” that’s only available to a special few.)
I’m not saying that this issue isn’t confusing or that there aren’t verses that do sound like “predestination” at first reading. And second reading. And third reading. It took me years to work through this and to find the view that fits best with Scripture and God’s character.
And what I found is that those “predestination” verses – the few that seem to support Calvinism – only support Calvinism if you read them with “Calvinist glasses” on. And if you don’t dig any deeper. (And for every verse that sounds like predestination, there are so many more that contradict that idea.)
What you need to do is look up older translations of those verses and look up the words in the concordance and keep Scripture in context and keep God’s revealed character in mind (and be willing to find out that you might have been wrong all along). And when you do this, you begin to see that it’s not predestination/Calvinism and that the Bible isn’t as confusing as it seems and that it does actually reveal a consistent character of God from one end to the other – a truly loving, just, and righteous God.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Calvinism makes a mess of the Gospel. But once you get rid of Calvinism and predestination, it all makes sense.
(Now, you’ll have to excuse me while I go sit down and cry for awhile.)
[And for the record, there is one thing Calvinism and I agree on, and it’s that a true believer can’t lose their salvation. I believe that a true believer who has the Holy Spirit will not be able to “lose their salvation,” even if it might seem like it for a time, such as during a tragedy or a particularly hard season of life. If you are truly a believer but have drifted from the Lord, you will always feel the pull of the Holy Spirit, trying to call you back. And if anyone does “leave the faith,” they were never really a Christian to begin with. The information might have been in their head, but not in their heart. (Here is a post on that.)
However, where I disagree with Calvinism is that they say God makes someone a believer, that no one can ever really be sure that they are one of the elect until heaven, and that sometimes God causes the unelect to feel secure in their “fake salvation” so that He can solidify their damnation in hell more. (I don’t know if current Calvinists hold to this, or if it was just from John Calvin’s time.)
I believe that we can know we are saved if we did what God requires of us in the Bible: believed in the Lord Jesus and accepted His sacrifice on our behalf. And if we have the Holy Spirit, He will guide us in our faith and godly wisdom and help us grow to be more like Christ, even though we won’t do it perfectly and we will stumble and fall and struggle along the way. We grow to reflect Christ more because we are saved, not to “prove” or ” earn” or “secure” our salvation. It’s just the natural result of a true believer who is filled with the Holy Spirit and abiding in God, through prayer and His Word.]
heather writes, “The Bible says … Jesus died for all, loves all, and wants all men to be saved (John 3:16-17 and 5:24, Titus 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10, Romans 5:18 and 10:13. This first point alone is really all you need to see how twisted and dangerous Calvinism is.)
This is nice but you skirt the real issues. First, you ignore the issue of faith being required to respond to Christ. Do you mean to say that all people hear the gospel and all people receive faith to believe? Second, you ignore the definition of “all” or “world” that Calvinist, based on Ephesians 3, say is defined as “Jew and non-Jew.” You should define the Scripture from which you conlude that “all” means each and every individual and argue for your definition over the Calvinist definition.
Then, “But look at 2 Peter 2:1.”
“…the Master who bought them…” can be a reference ot God. It is God who put Christ on the cross as a payment for sin. That it was God who paid the penalty for our sin through the death of Christ. This would agree with Hebrews 11, “…he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” and 1 John 2, “…if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;…”
More later.
Oh, Rhutchin, here’s one more. Since you asked. Now, no more accusing me of not having Scripture to back up my views.
From my post, “If Calvinism is true, then God is a liar”:
Calvinism includes the belief that God has ordained everything (as in He pre-plans and causes everything that happens), that He predestined from the beginning of time whether you will go to heaven or hell, that Jesus only died for the “elect,” and that the unelect were never offered salvation because God willed them to go to hell for His purposes and glory.
But if Calvinism is true … then God is a liar!
I mean, listen to a few of their teachings in a nutshell, without all the fancy, convoluted Calvinist arguments to defend those ideas …
The Bible says God does not cause sin or cause people to sin, but Calvinism says God causes everything, even sin.
The Bible calls us all to believe and it places the responsibility to believe on us, but Calvinism says God blinds most people so that they cannot believe and that if we believe it’s because God predetermined we would and caused us to.
The Bible says God wants all people to come to Him and wants no one to perish, but Calvinism says God withholds salvation from most men because He wills them to perish, for His glory somehow.
The Bible says God loves the world and so He sent Jesus to die for us so that we might live, but Calvinism says God loves only the elect and that Jesus died only for the elect.
Calvinism – when you simplify it – completely contradicts the Word. And the only way it can sound somewhat believable is when they add all their fancy, convoluted arguments and reasoning. Does God need us to clarify His Word with all sorts of complicated, twisted reasonings? How is it that men couldn’t properly understand God’s Word until John Calvin came along? (I mean, yes, the Catholic church screwed it up, but that’s not the Bible’s fault.) Is Calvinism making God’s truth clearer?
Or is it trying to smoosh its bad theology into Scripture, where it doesn’t fit or belong?
(A warning to Calvinists: If you are going to change Jesus’s sacrifice for all people into a sacrifice for a “few prechosen people,” and if you are going to say that God doesn’t love all people the same, and if you are going to tell others that they can’t seek God when the Bible tells us over and over again to seek Him, and if you are going to say that God predetermines most people will go to hell for His pleasure and glory when, in the Bible, God calls us all to obey Him and tells us that “whosoever” wants to believe in Jesus can believe in Jesus … you had better be absolutely sure that your theological view has rock-solid support from the Bible! Because the Bible clearly and regularly teaches something far different than Calvinism. And I don’t think saying “Oh, but there’s a deeper, hidden meaning underneath what the Bible says” is going to be an acceptable excuse for changing what God says. If you are going to change the clear, consistent Gospel Truth that much, you had better be absolutely sure that you are right. For you will be held accountable for spreading Calvinism to others. And for those who are just nominal Calvinists, who blindly support Calvinism without really knowing what it teaches, you had better find out. Because you also will be held accountable for the people you affect when you say, “I’m a Calvinist.” For holding up Calvinism as Gospel Truth.)
Let me ask this to people who have read the Bible: If you read the Bible from beginning to end, without any Calvinist theologians telling you what to think or how to read it, would you be more likely to conclude that God loves all people and offers salvation to all, and that we are responsible for our choices and actions and beliefs … or would you be more likely to conclude that God causes everything that happens, even sin and unbelief, that He really doesn’t love all people and that Jesus didn’t die for everyone, and that the calls to believe and obey are “phony” because He’s already pre-decided where we all go and how we will behave?
And if you were unsure at all, wouldn’t it be erring on the side of caution to assume that if God said He loved all people and Jesus died for all people, He meant all people? To assume that “you will find Me if you seek Me” means “seek Me and find Me”? To assume that “whoever calls on the name of Jesus shall be saved” means “whoever does it,” not “whoever’s programmed to do it”? To assume that when God tells us to choose between obeying and disobeying, it means that we can choose between obeying and disobeying?
And if you were unsure at all about choosing between two views of God, which one would be the safer, more reasonable choice (especially since you will have to give an account to God for the way you presented Him and the Gospel to others):
1. The view of God as a loving, righteous, just God who wants all people to believe in Him, who died for all, who made salvation available to all, but who gave us the choice to accept or reject Him, to obey or disobey, and so He can and will justly hold us accountable for our choices. And a God who, in His sovereignty and wisdom, can work everything into His plans, even our self-chosen sin and rebellion … or …
2. The view of God as an unreasonable, illogical, unjust monster who causes every little thing that happens, even causing people to sin, but who then holds us accountable for sinning … who, in the Bible, calls us to “believe” and “seek” and “obey,” when He knows that we can’t choose to do any of that because He’s already decided and preplanned whether we will believe, seek, or obey … who loves only a few chosen people and sent Jesus to die only for those few people … who has predestined most people for hell even though He caused them to reject Him … and who expects us to still consider Him “just, righteous, and loving” in spite of all this.
If it was unclear at all … if you were going to stand on the Word alone, without all the confusing Calvinistic reinterpretations and arguments … which is the safer, more reasonable, more Scripture-supported view?
I think one of the best things a Calvinist can do is, first of all, pray and ask God to show you the Truth, even if it means showing you that you’ve been wrong all this time (and really mean it, because if you don’t mean it, you’ll only see what you want to see), and then read the Bible from beginning to end, with fresh eyes, with no Calvinist glasses on, and see how He acts, what He says, and how He interacts with people. And as you do this, figure out if it sounds like He micromanages everything, even sin and unbelief … or if it sounds like He has given us the right and responsibility to make choices and decisions that He holds us accountable for.
For the record, I have been a Christian for over 30 years. I have been reading the Bible since I was a preteen. I am currently on my 6th or 7th time reading the Bible from beginning to end. And I know how to study. I have a Bachelor’s Degree and Master’s Degree. So I know how to study things deeply and carefully. I don’t want anyone to think I am some sort of newbie at reading the Bible. I have been doing it for many years. And although I leaned toward Calvinism in my late teens because I was led to believe it was truth and because I wanted to accept the “truth” like a good Christian, I have been deeply studying it for several years now, due to our pastor’s dogmatic stance on it. And the more I study, the more messed-up Calvinism gets. The more wicked it gets. And the more I have to speak out against it, to help all those who are unwittingly led into accepting it too because they’ve been told it’s “truth” and that they have to accept it to be a good, humble Christian.
(And for the record, the only thing Calvinism and I agree on is that true Christians can’t lose their salvation. But I don’t necessarily see it the same way they do. But, in my view, if you are truly a believer, then the Holy Spirit is in you to stay, even if you go through hard times when you’re faith is shaky. Here is a post I wrote on that.)
So let’s take a look at some of the ways God has to be considered a liar … if Calvinism is true.
(A note for Calvinists: Take off the Calvinist glasses, toss out the complicated Calvinist explanations, and read Scripture plainly, as it was written, to see what it really says.):
1. 2 Peter 3:9: “[The Lord] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” If, as Calvinism says, God has already predetermined that most people will go to hell because it brings Him glory somehow, then He indeed wanted people to perish and didn’t want everyone to come to repentance. So God would be lying by saying He really does want all to come to repentance and no one to perish.
God to the people: “Hey everybody, I want you all to come to repentance …” (tee-hee-hee) “… I don’t want anyone to perish.” (snicker, snicker)
And He’d be lying to say He was patient with us, wanting to give everyone the chance to be saved.
God: “Look how patient I am, waiting for all of you” (tee-hee-hee) “to find salvation in Me.” (giggle, giggle) “That’s right, I’m giving you plenty of time to come to Me.” (Ha-ha-ha, suckers! You have no choice. It’s already been decided for you!)
There is no need to be patient with us if He Himself has already decided who will be saved and when they will be saved and if no one but the “elect” can be saved. It’s nonsense!
[More nonsense: Calvinists explain this away by saying that God can want one thing but decree another, as in “He can want all people to be saved but decree that most people will go to hell for His glory and His reasons.” Yes, I agree that God can want something but decree another … but not as in “God wants all men to be saved but predetermines most will go to hell.” That is illogical and contradictory! I believe it’s like this: “God wants all men to be saved, but He has decided to give us a choice. Instead of ‘forcing’ us all to choose Him, as He wants us to, He allows us to reject Him and, consequently, to end up in hell.” This is how God can logically, biblically want one thing but decree another. And it fits with His character, with His desires, with Scripture, with logic, and with man’s responsibility and accountability to the Gospel.]
2. Deuteronomy 4:29: “But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” And in Amos 5:4, God says “Seek me and live …” But Calvinism says that we can’t seek Him unless He makes us seek Him. And we can’t find Him unless we were prechosen to find Him. So either Calvinism is wrong … or God is lying when He makes it sound like we are responsible to seek and find, that by seeking we find. (And why command us to seek when we can’t seek anyway? What a waste of paper the Bible is … if Calvinism is true! I mean, there’s no need for us to read the Gospel if we can’t choose to respond to the Gospel. There’s no need to tell us to obey or believe if we can’t choose to obey or believe.)
Question: If God is the one who forces the elect to believe, why would Jesus marvel at the faith of the centurion (Matthew 8:10/Luke 7:9)?
Jesus to the people: “Oh my goodness, look at the amazing faith this person displayed in Me! I am astonished to see such great faith!”
God whispering to Jesus: “Uh, Jesus … remember that we gave him that great faith! Don’t act so surprised, or else people will start to think that the centurion had something to do with his faith!”
Jesus: “Uh … April Fools! Gotchya, didn’t I? Of course I’m not surprised by this! I made him be this way!” (Phew! Thanks, Father. I almost slipped up there.)
And wouldn’t pointing out this man’s great faith mean that Jesus was somehow “giving credit” to the man, credit that really belonged to God if God chooses who to give faith to, for His purposes and glory? Why would Jesus give God’s credit to a man?
Additionally, why would Jesus be amazed at the lack of faith of the people in Mark 6:6, if God Himself is the one who, from the beginning of time, has chosen whom to give faith to and whom to withhold it from?
Jesus to the people: “Wow, I’m shocked at how unbelieving you guys are!”
God to Jesus: “Uh, that’s out fault, remember! Our decision.”
Jesus to God: “Uh, yeah, I forgot for a second whom we gave faith to and whom we didn’t. There’s just so many people to keep track of. But I remember now. Thanks for the help.”
Jesus to the people: “Just to clarify: I am just pretending to be shocked. It’s a dramatic show to emphasize how … um … how … wait, I know, it’s sarcasm. It’s like ‘Wow, how unbelieving you are’ when I really mean ‘Duh! Of course you’re unbelieving. I made you that way!'”
(Now, I’m not saying that anything truly surprises God. He knows everything. But I am saying I think it brings God delight to see people who choose to be faithful. It brings Him grief to see faithlessness. He has given us a choice, and He has emotions in response to what we choose.)
3. Romans 5:18 and 1 Timothy 2:6 say Jesus’s death was a ransom for all men. But Calvinism says Jesus’s death didn’t cover all men, that it only covered the “elect.” They say that God really meant “only the elect” or “all kinds of men” when the Bible clearly and consistently says “all men,” over and over again. So who is lying?
Titus 2:11: “The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” Not if Calvinism is true! If Calvinism is true, the grace of God for salvation appears only to the elect! And then God would be intentionally misleading people, making it sound like we all have the chance to be saved.
2 Peter 2:1 says that Jesus’s death even bought the false teachers, those who deny Him. Yet Calvinism says Jesus didn’t die for the “unelect,” which clearly would include false teachers who deny Him and who introduce destructive heresies. But 2 Peter 2:1 says that the Lord “bought them,” those who “bring destruction on themselves.” Once again, who’s lying?
A Calvinist’s 2 Peter 2:1: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies that God planted in their minds and caused them to introduce, even denying the sovereign Lord who didn’t buy them with His blood – bringing swift destruction on themselves, but not really because no one can bring anything on themselves because God has to cause everything that happens.”
(Did you know that the NIV is one of the only translations to have the word “sovereign” in 2 Peter 2:1. Almost all the other translations – older ones – just say “Lord” or “Master.”)
And how about:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life… Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son… Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:16-19)
Big fat lie … if Calvinism is true!
Because if Calvinism is true, God only loved the elect and only the elect will have eternal life! And so the verses should read: “For God so loved the elect that He sent Jesus so that only the elect would have eternal life. Whoever is elected is not condemned, but the unelect are condemned and can do nothing about it because God has pre-decided that they will perish. Light has come into the world for only the elect, but the unelect love the darkness because God created them to love the darkness and to never see the Light.” There! That’s better! Now it fits with Calvinism!
4. Calvinism says that God blinds the minds of unbelievers, that it’s up to Him to open people’s minds or close people’s minds. But 2 Corinthians 4:4 says “The god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ …” If God really does the blinding, then He’s lying when He blames Satan for it. Besides that, if Calvinism is true then God controls everything for His purposes and glory. He’s the only operating force in this world, which means that He causes Satan to blind unbelievers. Once again, it comes back to God. Yet God makes it sound like Satan does it. I wonder why God would give Satan the “credit” for blinding unbelievers if God Himself is the one who blinds unbelievers for His own glory?
Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there, God, aren’t ya!?! You did something for Your glory … but then You attribute it to Satan! You’re sharing Your glory with Satan!?!
(FYI: God does blind people at times in the Bible, but He does it in response to their self-chosen hard-heartedness. Basically, if they don’t want to believe, He gives them what they want – unbelief.)
5. Romans 1:20 says that since we can clearly see God through His creation, we have no excuse for not believing in Him. But Calvinism says that the unelect are predestined to not believe in God, no matter how much creation points to a Creator. The unelect have no chance to believe in Him because God blinded them. That right there would be the ultimate excuse for not believing in God. “But God, You created me to not believe in You!” Is God lying when He says that we can see Him in His creation and believe, and that we are responsible for our choice to not believe because He is so clearly seen in His creation?
God: “Listen up, people! You can easily see that I exist when you look at My creation. And so I will hold you accountable if you don’t – for not seeing Me and not seeking Me. You have no excuse for not knowing I was real … Uh, wait, I mean the elected people can see Me when they look at My creation. Actually, they have to see Me because I am forcing them to. But the unelected people will never see Me because I created them that way. But I am still going to hold them accountable, even though I made them that way. But they can’t use that as an excuse. When they stand before Me, I’m still gonna ask them, ‘Why didn’t you believe in Me?’ And when they say, ‘But God, You made me to not …’, I’m gonna interrupt them and yell, ‘NO EXCUSES! You should have seen Me in creation!’ And then for My own glory and pleasure, I’m gonna damn them to hell for all of eternity for not seeing Me in creation. You’re welcome, people of the world! Aren’t you glad to have such a good, righteous, loving, just God controlling your every move!?! I mean, just imagine what kind of monster God you could’ve gotten! You dodged a bullet there, didn’t you? Well, I mean, at least the elected people did.”
6. Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers chicks under her wings, but I caused you to be unwilling, so I don’t really have anyone to blame for my sadness but myself.” Umm … yeah … that’s not what it says. It says “but you were not willing.” If Calvinism is true, God made them unwilling to believe. Therefore, He’s lying by making it sound like they chose to be unwilling, that they chose to resist Him. Or He’s simply confused about who really causes people to be unwilling.
7. Calvinists say God causes people to be unbelievers, to have hard-hearts, to sin. But … “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty.” (Zechariah 7:11-13)
Wait a second … What’s this I read!?! They “refused” to pay attention? They turned their backs and stopped listening? They made their hearts hard? Oh boy! Did John Calvin know about this? ‘Cuz he’s be most unhappy to see God contradicting him like this?
If Calvinism is true, God is lying when He assigns blame to the people, and He is punishing them for something He caused! Hallelujah, what a wonderful, just, righteous God we serve! That He would cause us to sin and then punish us for it! Hallelujah! Let’s sing of God’s glory forever!
And why would God get angry for something He caused? Silly God! He could have prevented His own anger if He had just forced them to listen. He didn’t have to cause them to not listen. But, I don’t know … maybe He likes getting angry now and then, and so He creates people who won’t listen, just so He can pretend to be angry with them? And, I wonder … why would He say that because they wouldn’t listen when He called, He won’t listen when they call … when, all along, He’s the one who caused them to not listen? What a silly little charade our God likes to engage in every now and then, just for His own amusement!
And not only does God cause Himself to get angry every now and then, but He causes Himself to grieve and be filled with pain.
“The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” Genesis 6:5-6
Well, this makes it sound like mankind chose to be evil, and it grieved God to see how wicked mankind had become. But, thanks to John Calvin, we all know this isn’t what God meant to say. Because God causes men to be wicked and evil. Therefore, God caused His own grief and pain. Because it pleased Him to do so. So essentially, God is a sadomasochist – causing others and Himself pain because He likes it.
Clearly, the Holy Spirit was confused (or intentionally misleading) when He caused the authors to write this. But with John Calvin’s help, we can clearly understand what the Holy Spirit meant to say:
“The Lord saw how great He had made men’s wickedness and how evil He had made men’s hearts to be. And He was grieved that He made men to be so evil and wicked, and His heart was filled with the pain that He caused Himself.”
So! Much! Better!
[None of this makes any sense! But it is the Calvinist God. And how do Calvinists respond when we question their nonsense? They say, “Well, God is sovereign and so He causes everything, even sin and unbelief, but He is still just in holding us responsible for it. We don’t have to understand it; we just have to accept it.”
Say WHAT!?! That’s nonsense! It’s not even a real answer. It’s nonsense.
And they get you to agree to it by, first, making it sound like “sovereignty” means “total and complete micromanaging” (when it doesn’t mean that) and then by saying, “Well, the Bible teaches God’s sovereignty, and we don’t have to like it but we have to accept it. Humble Christians don’t question God.” They speak nonsense, and follow it with shaming and manipulation and double-talk to get you to agree to the nonsense. (Hmm, I wonder … how do cults operate!?!)
Did you know that according to the concordance, which uses the KJV, the words “sovereign” and “sovereignty” are not in the KJV Bible anywhere? From what I can tell, it’s used almost 300 times in the NIV, but never in the KJV. The KJV simply says “Lord.” Interesting! I wonder why they felt the need to add a word that is barely in the older translations.
And while Calvinists like to define “sovereignty” as “God causing or controlling everything that happens,” the definition of “sovereign” has nothing to do with “causing or controlling everything.” It doesn’t imply any action. It’s a state of being, a description of the position God is in. He is above all, the “Master,” He possesses supreme power. BUT … this doesn’t imply the action of always using His power to control everything. Calvinists have added this idea to the definition of “sovereignty.” (And then this word has been added to many verses in the NIV.)
Yes, God is sovereign. He has the power to control everything, but He has chosen to not always use it to control everything. Calvinists have a misunderstanding of sovereignty. And then the problem is that instead of just fixing this wrong view of “sovereignty” (and “ordains” and “predestines”) so that it agrees with Scripture, it twists Scripture to fit its wrong views. Ugh! It’s so wrong!
Or … maybe the Bible is wrong and Calvinists are right? Maybe the Bible got it all twisted up, and Calvinists fixed it?
(Here is what Tony Evans says about God’s sovereignty, about how God sometimes causes things or sometimes just allows things, but how He holds it all in His hands and works it all out for good. Also see “Connecting With God For A Breakthrough” – a good biblical view of mankind’s responsibility and God’s actions.)]
8. Once again, Calvinism says that God causes and predetermines everything, even sin and unbelief (causing people to not believe in the truth). But James 1:13-15 says God does not tempt anyone to sin, and John 8:44 says that Satan is the father of lies. Clearly, if Calvinism is true – that God causes people to sin and to believe lies – then how wrong is it for God to claim that He doesn’t tempt people to sin and that Satan is the father of lies?
So … let me get this straight … the Calvinist God commands people to do things that He created them unable to do (seek Him, obey Him, believe in Him), but He causes them to do things He commands them not to do (sin, reject Jesus, etc.).
Yep, makes perfect sense!
John Calvin was a theological genius!
[Once again, Calvinists respond to this kind of conundrum with “God causes everything, even sin, but we are still accountable for our sin. We can’t understand it, but we just have to accept it.” It’s double-talk and nonsense. Because all along the way, the Bible is clear that God doesn’t cause sin, that we choose to sin, and that it’s why we can be held accountable for it.
Question for Calvinists: Does saying something enough times make it true?
And doesn’t saying that we are still somehow accountable and responsible for our sins imply that we did something to deserve to be punished? That we have an effect on what happens to us? I thought, according to Calvinism, that we couldn’t do anything to affect our lives or the outcome of our lives. So apparently, the elect do nothing to be saved (not even believe in Jesus on their own), but the unelect do something to deserve the punishment they get. Where is “God’s sovereign control” now, if we did something to somehow “deserve” our damnation? It isn’t all God’s doing then, is it?
No wonder it takes a genius like John Calvin to figure this all out. I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand it all. Good thing John Calvin came along when he did, or the Gospel might always have been a confusing mess to us!
But wait … now I’m wondering … what then is the “way out of temptation” that God provides in 1 Cor. 10:13 … if God Himself is the one who causes us to sin or not sin? Why provide a “way out” when He is the one who put us there? Why tell us that we can find a way out when He alone determines if and when we get out? What does “God is faithful and will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear” mean if He Himself controls our sin and unbelief? He’s faithful to … what? … keep us from sinning if He chooses to keep us from sinning, but cause us to sin if He predetermines that we sin? And how can we “bear” anything, when God Himself decides if we bear it or not?
I know, I know … it’s my tiny brain. My tiny, limited, human brain simply can’t understand such grand ideas, so I’ll have to wait till eternity to see clearly. Till then, I just have to trust in John Calvin … oops, I mean “God”!
Honestly, the sermon that made me go “I am done listening to this pastor” was the one where our pastor said that God ordains everything (as in preplans/causes everything) for His glory … even childhood abuse (included in the list of “God-ordained” tragedies). He said whatever happened in your life was God’s Plan A for your life, for your good, for His glory, for His purposes, to humble you, etc., and that you just have to trust Him.
It’s one thing to say God allowed it – that He allowed someone to make a disastrous choice and do bad things to others (that’s an unfortunate part of us having free-will, the right to do wrong), and that He can heal it and use it for good, if you let Him.
But it’s another thing to say that God Himself causes people to commit horrible, violent sins – sins He commands them not to commit – because “it brings Him glory somehow, it’s for your own good, and because He knew you needed it to humble you”! What!?! Are you frickin’ kidding me!?! That is horrifying! (See my post “Does God Cause Childhood Abuse?”)
God uses people’s self-chosen sin and wickedness for His purposes and glory, but He doesn’t cause them to sin and be wicked!
What was it that Joseph said to his brothers in Genesis 50:20: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good…” How can man “intend” to do anything? According to Calvinism, there is only One who is allowed to have any intentions and whose intentions have any effect of the world: God! Maybe Joseph misunderstood how mankind and how God operates. But, that’s understandable … because John Calvin hadn’t come along yet to explain it all.
This pastor also believes God commands spanking, and that spanking should hurt. I, however, believe the Bible commands discipline, not necessarily spanking.
Question for the pastor: So, pastor, you spank your children and grandchildren. Why?
I would imagine the answer is something about helping train them up in the right path, teaching them to obey.
Oh, but wait! You believe we have no control over our lives, over the path we take and whether we obey or not. You believe God controls everything that happens. But then you spank your kids to affect their upbringing. Are you saying that you have some sort of control over their lives, how they act, who they become? When God alone, according to you, has the power and is the only operating force in this world? How can you believe you can affect your kids’ lives and behavior when you don’t even have an effect on your own beliefs about God? Hmm?
And if God wanted your children to turn into little monsters, for His glory and purposes, why would you interfere with that? Why think you can interfere with that? Shouldn’t you let God raise your kids, especially since we have no control or influences over anything in life anyway? And why keep pretending like we do? What’s going to happen is going to happen. It’s already been predetermined since before time!
I would imagine him saying “Well, God needs us to obey Him, to discipline our kids, because that’s how He’s going to work out His plan in their lives.”
Oh, I see … so God needs us. He needs us to accomplish something He couldn’t do Himself. Where is the completely, in-control, “sovereign” God now? If He “needs” our obedience to accomplish His Will? And besides, if He expects us to obey His command to discipline our kids (the pastor would say “spank”) doesn’t that mean we can disobey? And if we can choose between obeying and disobeying, doesn’t that bring us right back to free-will? Oh, I know, it must be that God caused you – predestined you – to spank your kids, and you have no control over it, right? (Boy, I wish John Calvin was here to help explain this all to me!)
I don’t think this pastor would be happy that I am speaking out against Calvinism. But let me ask this: If he truly believes that God causes everything for His purposes and glory, that nothing happens unless He causes it and ordains it, then can he really get upset with me for speaking out against Calvinism? I didn’t choose to do it. I had no choice. God made me do it!
You know, if Calvinists tell you enough times that you can’t understand Scripture clearly and that you just have to accept what they say in faith, then you will stop looking for answers and stop thinking you should have answers. They make you feel “unhumble” for digging for reasonable, logical truth, as if you are trying to find out things mere humans are not supposed to know. If you really study them and their arguments, you’ll begin to see that they use almost cult-like techniques to ensnare you and to prevent you from questioning them. It’s actually quite scary!]
9. Calvinism says that Jesus only died for the elect, that the elect are prechosen before they are born, and that the unelect were never offered saving grace. But … Romans 11:32: “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” Who’s lying? Is God lying when He says that we are “all” in the same boat? Oh, I know … He must be talking about two different groups of “all men” in this verse, but He leaves it obscure enough so that only the Calvinists – the super-special chosen ones – can understand it: “For God has bound all unelected men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all elected men.” There! Much better! See how much more clearly Calvinistic is it when we insert the words God must have meant to include but forgot to include! (Phew! Thank God for men like John Calvin, or we might never have been able to understand what God was so clumsily trying to say.)
10. Calvinists say God wanted/planned for/caused Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. But God commanded them not to eat the fruit. Did God command them to do the opposite of what He really wanted them to do? How do you trust a God like that? So then when God says “Keep the marriage bed pure,” surely He must mean to do the opposite, right? And if I have an affair, then it was His Will that I have an affair because He causes everything that happens, right? For His purposes and glory, right? Thank You, Calvinists, for completely undermining every command God gave. Because clearly He might really mean the opposite and cause the opposite of whatever He commands us to do!
11. The Bible teaches there’s a spiritual war going on around us. How could that be if God causes everything and if everything works out exactly the way He planned? To have a war, you need at least two sides that oppose each other, that work against each other. But if Calvinism is true, there is only one Being that operates in this world and that influences this world: God! So is God lying whenever He talks about a spiritual war? Was the angel in Daniel 10 lying when he said that he was prevented from delivering the answer to Daniel by demonic forces who opposed him? Is this “fake opposition” – God working against Himself because “God controls everything”? Is this a real spiritual war? Or is it a farce, a dramatic show orchestrated by an “all-controlling” God?
And what about Romans 12:21: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”? If God is the only active force in this world, if He controls and instigates evil for His purposes and glory, isn’t this Bible verse telling us to not let God (the controller of evil) overcome us but that we should overcome Him? Isn’t that a bit contradictory? And why try to overcome evil if God Himself is behind that evil and has a purpose for it and if He’s trying to bring Himself glory through it? Hmm, surely God must be confused about who’s in charge of evil if would He tell us to overcome evil when He Himself is in control of that evil! Maybe when He told us to overcome evil, He forgot that He was causing that evil for His purposes and glory! Silly God! So confused sometimes!
Why would God say “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7), if God Himself decides who submits to God and if He decides who won’t be able to “resist” the devil? If Calvinism is true, shouldn’t it read “Submit yourselves to God … if He makes you submit yourselves to Him. Resist the devil … if He’s predetermined that you’ll resist the devil. Because you can’t do anything on your own. God has to do it all for you. And now that I think about it, I don’t even really know why I am telling you to submit and resist … because telling you to do these things can have no effect on whether or not you do them. Hmm? I’m confused.”
Why would God warn us in 1 Peter 5:8-9 to “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. So resist him, standing firm in the faith…” if you can’t do anything about it? If you are not in control of any of this? Peter doesn’t sound like a Calvinist to me: Self-control? Control of the self? Resist the devil? Instead of “You don’t have any influence over yourself because God determines everything, even if you resist the devil”? Stand firm in the faith? Instead of “God causes you to have faith and will keep you firm in the faith”?
But maybe I’m reading it wrong!
Oh, and what is the fruit of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and God-control. Oops, scratch that, it actually says “self-control.” Interesting. I didn’t think self-control was possible, according to Calvinism. I guess the Bible must be mistaken.
12. Calvinists say God shows His love to the elect by saving them and to the unelect by caring for them while they are on earth. And they say He shows His justice by damning the unelect to hell. But the Bible says God shows His love AND His justice by sending Jesus to die on the cross for us. (Romans 3:25-26, Romans 5:8) So who’s wrong? Who’s lying?
God: I am going to show My love to all men by sending Jesus to the cross to pay for all sins!
Calvinists: Uh, no, God! We told you: You show two different kinds of love. A saving love for the elect, and a “providing food and water” kind of love for the unelect.
God: Oh, yeah, that’s right. But the Bible’s already been written. Oh well, I guess I’ll get John Calvin to fix it in the 1500’s. But at least I can exercise My justice by sending Jesus to the cross to pay the price required for mankind’s sin.
Calvinists (closing their eyes, pressing their fingers to their foreheads, slowly shaking their heads back and forth in exasperation): Come on, God. We thought You’d catch on by now! You don’t show Your justice by having Jesus pay the price required for everyone’s sin. You show Your justice by not covering the sins of the unelect with Jesus’s blood, by not offering them salvation, by forcing the unelect to be unbelievers, and then by damning them to hell for it! Why is that so hard to figure out!?!? And … let’s go over this again … You show Your amazing love by …”
God: “Oh, I know … by sending Jesus to the cross to pay for all men’s sin!”
Calvinists: “UGH, NO!!! You show Your amazing, wonderous love by sending Jesus to die only for the elect and by giving the unelect food and clothes for 80 years or so before damning them to hell for all of eternity for what You made them do! You know what, I’m tired. I need to go lie down. This is exhausting!”
13. In 1 Samuel 23:12-13, David asks God if the people of Keilah will hand him over to Saul if he stays there. God says they will, so David leaves. How could God have a different outcome in mind if He always preplans everything that happens? If God preplanned that David left and wasn’t handed over, there was no possible alternative ending and, therefore, He was lying by telling David there was.
“Uh, yeah, David, sure they’ll hand you over to Saul if you stay, so you better leave” (giggle, giggle, wink, wink).
14. In Samuel 13:13-14, Saul had disobeyed the Lord, and Samuel tells him that God would have established Saul’s kingdom if he would have obeyed. Once again, how could God have had any other plan in mind if He preplans everything? If Calvinism is true, then God would’ve been lying to imply that Saul had an effect on what happened.
“Uh, yeah, sure I would have established Saul’s kingdom if he had obeyed. But he didn’t obey because I caused him to not obey, so there really was no chance of him obeying or of ever having his kingdom established. But if it were possible for him to obey – which it wasn’t – then I would have established his kingdom. But I really wouldn’t have. Because I predestined him to not obey and to lose his kingdom. But yeah, if he would have obeyed, I would have. But not really!”
15. In Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus says that if His miracles had been done in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, they would have repented. How can that be if God predetermines everything, even people’s rejection of Him? If things are predetermined, they would not have repented because they didn’t repent. But Jesus says they would have repented, if the circumstances were different. Was He lying? Or did the people really have the choice about how they responded to Jesus? Did their choices really affect the outcome?
Jesus to the people: “Those people in Sodom would have believed if they saw the miracles I did.”
God whispering to Jesus: “Uh, no! Remember they didn’t believe because I predetermined they wouldn’t believe and I caused them to not believe. So, no, they wouldn’t have believed for any reason because I willed them to be unbelievers.”
Jesus: “Uh, okay, let me clarify that … They would have believed if they saw the miracles I did … if God wanted them to believe. But He didn’t, so they really wouldn’t have believed. But if He wanted them to, then they would have. Does that make sense? No!?! Well, you don’t have to understand it; you just have to accept it! In about 1500 years, it will all be clearer because a man named John Calvin will be born. Wait for him to explain it all to you more thoroughly.”
16. Why would God tell Nineveh that they would be overthrown in 40 days if He never intended to overthrow them anyway? Either He lied … or the people’s response really did affect the outcome?
Jonah: “Hey, Nineveh, you will be overthrown in 40 days! But you really won’t. Because God’s already predestined that you won’t be overthrown. But even though you won’t really be overthrown, repent so that you aren’t overthrown, which is what God’s already planned anyway. Wait, God, I’m confused. What am I warning the people about?”
God: “Jonah, you’re making a mess of this. Just tell the people to wait for John Calvin.”
17. Calvinism says God “ordains” everything, meaning that He preplans/causes everything. But Calvinists misunderstand “ordains.” Yes, many times God does “cause” things to happen. But other times, God simply “allows” what happens, such as our sin and rebellion and unbelief. In His sovereignty and wisdom, God knows what will happen and He chooses to allow what will happen because He can work it into His plans. This is a biblical view of God “ordaining” everything that happens. But a Calvinist views “ordains” as God preplanning/causing everything that happens. But if that is true, then we need to cut out these verses because God is lying:
Hosea 8:4: “They [Israel] set up kings without my [God’s] consent; they choose princes without my approval.” (How is that possible, God? You must be lying, because there can never be a leader You didn’t pre-choose and preplan and cause to be a leader!)
Acts 14:16: “In the past, [God] let all nations go their own way.” (Impossible! You can never “let people go their own way” because that would imply they can make decisions. So You must mean, “I let them go the way I caused them to go, and then let them feel like they were really going their own way, like they made decisions on their own.”)
Isaiah 30:1: “Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the Lord, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine.” (All plans are Your plans, Lord. Everything that happens is because You made it happen. No one can carry out a plan that You didn’t make and cause. So why are You lying by saying things happened that were not Your plans? John Calvin would be so disappointed in You! You’re totally contradicting him!)
Jeremiah 19:4-5: “They have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods … They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offering to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” (Come on, God, admit it … Not only did You make them forsake You, but You most definitely did plan for them to burn their sons in the fire, because everything that happens is because You made it happen. And nothing can happen without You causing it. You caused them to burn their sons in the fire. Why … Why!?! … do You keep acting like You had nothing to do with that, acting like they chose to do this despicable thing on their own? But no worries, God … John Calvin clarified everything so that we could know the real truth!)
And we also have to get rid of (or twist) every verse that tells people to choose between obeying God or disobeying God and that calls us to seek God and that tells us Jesus died for all and loves all. Because, according to Calvinism, we can’t choose to obey or disobey; God determines that for us. And we can’t choose to seek Him, unless He makes us do it. And He doesn’t love all and He didn’t die for all, only for a few elect. So there’s no need for these irrelevant, nonsensical verses in the Bible.
So who is lying? Who is wrong? Who misunderstands the Gospel and how God operates: God or Calvinists?
Thank God for John Calvin! Without him, we might never have noticed all the mistakes God made in His Word! We might never have known what God really meant to say!
Calvinism preaches half-truths, twisted Scripture, “secret meanings to words,” and illogical contradictions that they expect you to blindly accept. Do not listen to it! If you are not trying to force Scripture into a Calvinist framework, the Bible is quite clear and makes sense and has consistent teachings about God and the Gospel.
Okay, this one is my fave:
“Jonah: “Hey, Nineveh, you will be overthrown in 40 days! But you really won’t. Because God’s already predestined that you won’t be overthrown. But even though you won’t really be overthrown, repent so that you aren’t overthrown, which is what God’s already planned anyway. Wait, God, I’m confused. What am I warning the people about?”
God: “Jonah, you’re making a mess of this. Just tell the people to wait for John Calvin.”
The Calvinist will take umbrage at your making fun of God; but we both know that you are only making fun of how absurd God would have to be were Calvinism true. Thankfully, he is not the confused, bumbling, egotistical, crazy dude who says one thing but means another that Calvinism requires him to be.
TS00 writes, “The Calvinist will take umbrage at your making fun of God; ”
God is willing for you to make fun of Him. God first warns Nineveh and then works in the hearts of the people to obey that warning. We know this because Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and Paul said, “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;” Without God moving in the hearts of the people of Nineveh, they would not have repented. That which Paul wrote about Israel applies to us today, “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” So, the example of Nineveh is given to us that we might know our condition in the flesh and that we cannot be saved except God save us. Is it no wonder that those whom God saves worship Him.
As you, me, FOH and countless others through the ages have discovered, simply reading the bible for yourself quickly reveals the enormous holes in Calvinism’s theology. It seems to me that the only reason Calvinism ever got a hold in the first place (which it quickly lost) was partly because of his manipulation and despotism, but also because people did not have a half dozen bibles in their homes which they could pick up and peruse at their pleasure.
Calvin could make wild claims – as he did – and few would be able to prove whether they were consistent with scripture or not; because they would only know what he shared with them. This still works today with believers who do not read and study the Word for themselves. But if you start reading, and, like me, try to keep a list of verses that contradict Calvinism, you will soon find yourself writing out nearly the entire bible. It became clear that it would be much easier to write down the verses that seem to uphold Calvinism than those that negate it.
TS00 writes, “But if you start reading, and, like me, try to keep a list of verses that contradict Calvinism, you will soon find yourself writing out nearly the entire bible.”
Yet, TS00 is never able to recall those verses to support the personal opinions he offers. Such a shame. Much helpful discussion might be encourages if he could do so.
Gee, I could have sworn FOH and I have detailed many of those passages time and again. Maybe rh should go back and reread what has been written over the last few years. It is not scripture that is wanting, but careful large-scale interpretation thereof. Of course I no longer rely on the prooftext game, by which Calvinism stands: pull a verse here, cull a fragment there, then make something up about what it means. Just read it . . . all. (Non-Calvi ‘all’ as in ‘all’.) The story arises repeatedly from narrative after narrative. God creates in love. Man sins. God offers forgiveness. Man accepts. God forgives. Rinse, repeat. From sin and death to eternal life.
No secret ‘first causes’. No hidden scripts. No cruel, harsh deity. No dis-ingenuousness. Love, mercy, life – that’s good news.
TS00 writes, “I could have sworn FOH and I have detailed many of those passages time and again.”
FOH is famous for his listing of the thousands of verses that call people to repentance or salvation. He, of course, always seems to neglect to mention that faith is required to respond to those invitations. One might think that FOH believes that people can respond without faith. That seems to fit his philosophy.
Your comments are normally devoid of Scripture and comprised mostly of your personal opinions. Perhaps from now on, we will see a different TS00.
Rhutchin, When you talk about God’s plans being finalized before creation, you mean that He’s planned out everything that will ever happen and that everything happens exactly according to His plans. Honest question: Where is the Scripture to back this up? Un-twisted, in-context Scripture.
Also, I do agree that God is in control. Absolutely. I just don’t believe He controls everything. He can be in control without controlling everything. He can allow people to make choices, and work it into His plans. And He can do this because He knows what they will choose. But He doesn’t cause them to choose what they do.
And no, Calvinism would say that God preplanned/caused what Satan did to Job, that He controlled Satan’s moves, not just that He knew what Satan would do. (If you say God merely knew it but didn’t cause it then you couldn’t really call yourself a Calvinist.) I’m the one who says that God knew what Satan would freely choose to do, and He allowed it anyway. Even if He didn’t cause it or preplan it.
And no, the issue between us isn’t “What does God know and when?” It’s “what does God cause?”
And fyi, with the posts I included from my blog, I will not be replying to people’s comments on my posts. I would rather simply open them up for others to comment on. But I will stay out of it. I already said all I need to say in my posts, and I don’t need to further elaborate on them or defend them. Take them or leave them as you will. But I will not reply to comments on them. Just so you don’t think I am snubbing you or not answering you. I don’t allow comments on my blog precisely because I just want to put them out for people to read and do what they want with, but it’s not my job to get involved with what others think about them. (And as I pointed out in another comment, click on my name to find my blog. That should take you there.)
heather asks, “Honest question: Where is the Scripture to back this up?’ (God’s plans being finalized before creation”
We should agree that the prophecies reflect God’s plans regarding the first and second coming of Christ. The seventy weeks of Daniel 9 are very specific. This requires that God take into account any events that could throw off the prophecy. Your question is whether God’s plans take “everything ” into account. In Isaiah 44, we read, ““Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. And who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place.” God puts a test before so-called gods – “let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place.” The challenge is to declare anything this is to happen because a god should be able to do this. Thus, God is declaring that He is able to do this. This is in line with Ephesians 1, “God works all things after the counsel of His will” and more specifically, Romans 8, “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” As people are called according to His purpose, we conclude that God has a plan to accomplish His purpose. In Ephesians 3, we read, “This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,” That God had an eterna; purpose tells us that He had planned from eternity to accomplish His purpose.
Then, “I do agree that God is in control. Absolutely. I just don’t believe He controls everything. He can be in control without controlling everything.”
I agree. Many people confuse God being in control with God controlling (or e.g., forcing people to do evil). However, God is necessarily controlling the extent to which people can do evil – thus people are Totally Depraved but not Utterly Depraved. Of course, God is sustaining the universe ensuring that physical laws work – gravity, thermodynamics, etc. So, it is necessary that God be controlling a lot of things but in control of everything. God can control what people do through various means – a policeman standing in front of a bank will deter a robber. Turmoil in Venezuela with lead to higher oil prices using up a greater portion of one’s income to buy gasoline. So, did God pre-plan all that happens. Certainly He could.
Then, “the issue between us isn’t “What does God know and when?” It’s “what does God cause?”
If God knows everything that will happen in the future and knows this before He created the world, then by creating the world, God sets in motion all that is to happen – He causes all to happen. If we agree that God knows everything that is to happen, then we must agree that God causes everything.
rh:
“If God knows everything that will happen in the future and knows this before He created the world, then by creating the world, God sets in motion all that is to happen – He causes all to happen. If we agree that God knows everything that is to happen, then we must agree that God causes everything.”
This is the sort of misrepresentation by Calvinists that deceives so many who are unwary and unwilling to investigate for themselves the teachings of Calvinism. This is what most concerns me with the whole program.
Here we have the misrepresentation that Calvinism simply asserts that God foreknows all things, and is the ’cause’ of all simply by nature of being the Creator. Ah, so we only believe in God’s foreknowledge after all, and can rid ourselves of the nasty little concepts of irresistible predestination, eternal decrees and God ordaining evil for his glory. This, of course, is not at all what Calvinism teaches. It is the opposite. It is what anti-Calvinism teaches, in rejection of Calvinism’s controlling, deterministic God who has not only foreseen from a distance but deliberately brought into existence every thought, plan, word and deed of every creature. Every single one.
Were this misstatement what Calvinism actually asserts, there would be no Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism, as both would be asserting the same beliefs. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the undeniable, well-documented assertions of Calvinism in order to not have to admit what a fool Calvi-god is for setting all things irrevocably in place, then getting mad about the results.
TS00
This is the sort of misrepresentation by Calvinists that deceives so many who are unwary and unwilling to investigate for themselves the teachings of Calvinism. This is what most concerns me with the whole program.
br.d
Bulls-eye again TS00!
Yes – the level of consistent and ongoing intellectual dishonesty – serves as a RED-FLAG that Calvinism cannot possibly be anything other than man-made.
TS00 writes, “there would be no Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism, as both would be asserting the same beliefs.”
Of course, Calvinism and Armiinianism have the same beliefs about God – being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. They also agree that people are Totally Depraved and that grace is required to enable a person to be saved. There is disagreement between the Calvinists and the Open Theists on God’s omniscience.
Brian can correct me if Im wrong, but I believe the difference is in how one defines and describes omniscience at work. Both assert God’s omniscience.
The orthodox statement concerning divine omniscience is philosophically qualified as “Essential Omniscience”
Which is defined as being fully cognoscente of and knowing the TRUTH-VALUE of every proposition.
And the “essential” component of omniscience stipulates there is never any point (in time or out of time) at which this knowledge is not known.
Calvinists punt to omniscience a large percentage of the time as a deflection strategy.
They are not really appealing to omniscience per-say but specifically to Foreknowledge.
And they don’t want to directly appeal to Foreknowledge because they know they have their own private interpretation of it which can be contested.
So appealing to omniscience is a back-door strategy.
It works to MASK the fact that they are actually appealing to Foreknowledge (i.e., their interpretation of Foreknowledge).
Its a very old trick – but once you’re familiar with it – the trick will no longer works.
br.d writes, “Calvinists punt to omniscience a large percentage of the time as a deflection strategy.”
The omniscience of God is a basic doctrine in Calvinist theology and well known. No deflection strategy here.
Then, “They are not really appealing to omniscience per-say but specifically to Foreknowledge.”
Foreknowledge is a subset of omniscience and refers to knowledge of the future. God’s knowledge of the future is a much discussed subject.
Then, “And they don’t want to directly appeal to Foreknowledge because they know they have their own private interpretation of it which can be contested.”
To contest the Calvinist doctrine of foreknowledge is to contest its doctrine of omniscience. The doctrine is understood and not contested as much as an alternatives are offered.
Then, “So appealing to omniscience is a back-door strategy.
It works to MASK the fact that they are actually appealing to Foreknowledge (i.e., their interpretation of Foreknowledge).”
Calvinist appeal to their definition of foreknowledge as others appeal to theirs. The Calvinist definition of foreknowledge is well know; thos ewho propose alternatives are not always upfront with their definitions.
Then, “Its a very old trick”
For what purpose?? Given that everyone knows the Calvinist position; it is not in dispute.
br.d
Calvinists punt to omniscience a large percentage of the time as a deflection strategy.”
rhutchin
The omniscience of God is a basic doctrine in Calvinist theology and well known. No deflection strategy here.
br.d
Here we have the FALLACY OF NON-SEQUITUR – something being well known misses the point altogether.
They are not really appealing to omniscience per-say but specifically to Foreknowledge.”
rhutchin
Foreknowledge is a subset of omniscience and refers to knowledge of the future. God’s knowledge of the future is a much discussed subject.
br.d
Another irrelevant red-herring – here its apparent someone simply wants to have something to say :-]
And they don’t want to directly appeal to Foreknowledge because they know they have their own private interpretation of it which can be contested.”
rhutchin
To contest the Calvinist doctrine of foreknowledge is to contest its doctrine of omniscience.
br.d
And you say I make unprovable claims!
This NON-SEQUITUR is a doosy! :-]
rhutchin
The doctrine is understood and not contested as much as an alternatives are offered.
br.d
Woow! And on that logic pro-abortion vs pro-choice are not contested as much as alternatives are offered – now that’s impressive! :-]
The Calvinist doctrine of Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination is not only contested by the majority of Christianity – it is REJECTED.
So appealing to omniscience is a back-door strategy.
It works to MASK the fact that they are actually appealing to Foreknowledge (i.e., their interpretation of Foreknowledge).”
rhutchin
Calvinist appeal to their definition of foreknowledge as others appeal to theirs. The Calvinist definition of foreknowledge is well know; thos ewho propose alternatives are not always upfront with their definitions.
br.d
Too funny!
I would love to see a *REAL* example of No-Calvinists who are -quote “not always upfront with their definitions”.
What we have here is REVERSE ATTRIBUTION – projecting Calvinist behavior patterns onto others. :-]
Then, “Its a very old trick”
rhutchin
For what purpose?? Given that everyone knows the Calvinist position; it is not in dispute.
br.d
That is of course what you’ve been trying to claim – but (see above) easily shown to be full of FALLACIES.
Therefore my statements still stand – thank you.
br.d writes, “The Calvinist doctrine of Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination is not only contested by the majority of Christianity – it is REJECTED. ”
In favor of what – Open Theism?
Then, “on that logic pro-abortion vs pro-choice are not contested as much as alternatives are offered”
The positions are well known and action is being taken to pursue one outcome or the other. In Calvinism vs non-Calvinism, the doctrinal positions are known – one is correct and one is not. Therefore, omniscience is not a deflection strategy – deflection from what?
br.d
The Calvinist doctrine of Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination is not only contested by the majority of Christianity – it is REJECTED. ”
rhutchin
In favor of what – Open Theism?
br.d
The Calvinist doctrine of (Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination) is simply a way to define Foreknowledge for the purpose of affirming Theological Determinism. Which the majority of Christianity has REJECTED throughout church history – and is classified as one of “Augustine’s Inventions”.
Then, “on that logic pro-abortion vs pro-choice are not contested as much as alternatives are offered”
rhutchin
The positions are well known and action is being taken to pursue one outcome or the other. In Calvinism vs non-Calvinism, the doctrinal positions are known – one is correct and one is not. Therefore, omniscience is not a deflection strategy – deflection from what?
br.d
-quote “action is being taken to pursue one outcome or the other” – What a hoot! :-]
The word games here are all too obvious.
All that to try to evade the fact that Calvinism’s Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination doctrine is a contested interpretation.
The good news:
Calvinism’s SHAPE-SHIFTING language all by itself – serves as a RED-FLAG that Calvinism is man-made.
I think anyone with an open mind who reads my original post on the deflection strategy will recognize it.
Bottom Line:
To claim that anyone who contests Calvinism’s private interpretation (Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination) is the equivalent of denying/rejecting/contesting the ORTHODOX doctrine of omniscience is a FALLACIOUS and dishonest argument strategy.
I think you’re in your dancing boxer routine at this point – and my post must have hit a nerve! :-]
br.d writes, ‘The Calvinist doctrine of (Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination) is simply a way to define Foreknowledge for the purpose of affirming Theological Determinism. Which the majority of Christianity has REJECTED throughout church history – and is classified as one of “Augustine’s Inventions”. ”
Again, we ask: In favor of what? The meaning here is that the person rejecting, Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination, must believe something. What is it that thy believe? Just tell us what you believe.
br.d
The Calvinist doctrine of (Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination) is simply a way to define Foreknowledge for the purpose of affirming Theological Determinism. Which the majority of Christianity has REJECTED throughout church history – and is classified as one of “Augustine’s Inventions”. ”
rhutchin
Again, we ask: In favor of what? The meaning here is that the person rejecting, Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination, must believe something. What is it that thy believe? Just tell us what you believe.
br.d
William Lane Craig – details the problems with “Foreknowledge = Fore-Ordination view
Here: youtube.com/watch?v=mXUMhSmeivE
What Calvinism brings to Foreknowledge – is essentially the simple proposition that Calvin’s god knows what he decrees.
Thus it LOGICALLY follows
– Calvin’s god Foreknows [X] as TRUE simply because he FIRST-CONCEIVED and then RENDERED-CERTAIN [X] as TRUE
– In such case [X] has its SOURCE/ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s mind.
One can reject that equivalence – simply favoring the NON-equivalence.
And Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, etc (see link above) provide one example of that.
br.d writes, “What Calvinism brings to Foreknowledge – is essentially the simple proposition that Calvin’s god knows what he decrees.”
Thus, God decrees, first, and thereby knows. Craig reversed the order leading to confusion.
br.d
What Calvinism brings to Foreknowledge – is essentially the simple proposition that Calvin’s god knows what he decrees.”
rhutchin
Thus, God decrees, first, and thereby knows. Craig reversed the order leading to confusion.
br.d
I’m afraid the confusion is yours.
The proposition [P] = [Q] does not have an order.
No one ever said Calvinists are short on hubris! :-]
Just another sideshow to distract. Most people – apart from Calvinists – understand the distinction between foreknowledge and fore-ordination. They are not synonyms, and it is pure presumption to assert the philosophical theory that foreknowledge requires fore-ordination.
Scripture tells us otherwise, else God is simply playing games with men. When God gave Moses The Law, and commanded all of Israel to keep it, he knew full well that they would not. And yet, he offered promises and warnings in line with the real choices they had to make. When God warns Cain of the sin that seeks to master him, even knowing what Cain’s choice would be did not negate God’s genuine warning which genuinely desired that Cain would make the right choice.
Were God controlling and manipulative, yet wanted to appear to allow freedom of choice, he could have arranged it so that man could only choose between particular choices. If we are sneaky, we can offer our children the choice between our favorite gourmet pub and a salad bar joint, knowing full well which they will choose. Had we offered them genuine freedom, we may have ended up at McDonald’s.
An honest look around us reveals that men have an unlimited number of choices. We do not see merely saints and villains, but all manner of variations in between. That is because each individual determines how much or how little of God’s light they allow into their lives. Reality does not at all reflect a black and white determinism.
As well as I know them, my five children continue to surprise me. As they grow in maturity, experience, knowledge of the world and themselves, the choices they make reflect those changes. What a joy to see my vegetable-hating son order a salad! What a surprise when my most gregarious child chooses to stay home on a Friday night and go to bed early, because he has a big morning ahead of him.
The glorious truth is that we have an enormous potential to become so much more than we now are. We can counteract character failings, overcome addictions, change bad habits – because God has not limited us by setting our future in stone. He is our most ardent cheerleader, urging us to learn and grow in wisdom and maturity.
What a hideous, depressing and hopeless worldview Calvinistic Determinism presents. There is little hope for the addictions we or our loved ones battle. Hated jobs, abusive relationships, and other unhealthy aspects of our lives appear inevitable burdens we must simply bear as ‘God’s will’.
I cannot overstate the sense of freedom and the joy I felt when exiting the Calvinist fold once and for all. Many others have expressed the same feelings. My circumstances hadn’t immediately changed, apart from walking away from much that I loved; but I had a new hope, an assurance that I could walk toward a brighter future. I knew I had chosen a difficult, and frequently lonely path, but I no longer experienced the fear and despair that fatalism produces.
TS00
I cannot overstate the sense of freedom and the joy I felt when exiting the Calvinist fold once and for all. Many others have expressed the same feelings. My circumstances hadn’t immediately changed, apart from walking away from much that I loved; but I had a new hope, an assurance that I could walk toward a brighter future. I knew I had chosen a difficult, and frequently lonely path, but I no longer experienced the fear and despair that fatalism produces.
br.d
Wonderful post and wonderful testimony TS00!
I’m so very glad you are here! :-]
TS00 writes, “Most people – apart from Calvinists – understand the distinction between foreknowledge and fore-ordination. ”
The idea that “foreknowledge = Fore-ordian” is from Craig and is a little off but you have to work with what people believe. It should actually be “Fore-ordain => Foreknowledge.” In Calvinism, God first ordains and that which He ordains becomes His knowledge, so foreknowledge does equal fore-ordains but suggests a different ordering.
Then, ‘Were God controlling and manipulative, yet wanted to appear to allow freedom of choice, he could have arranged it so that man could only choose between particular choices.”
Most people recognize that people are slaves to sin and can only sin. Paul wrote, “Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”
Then, “That is because each individual determines how much or how little of God’s light they allow into their lives.”
This can happen only after they receive faith.
Then, “As they grow in maturity, experience, knowledge of the world and themselves, the choices they make reflect those changes.”
Introduce faith and the growth is dramatic toward God.
Then “The glorious truth is that we have an enormous potential to become so much more than we now are. ”
This is true only of believers.
Then, “What a hideous, depressing and hopeless worldview Calvinistic Determinism presents. ”
Of life without faith. Thus, Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.
Yes, indeed TS00! Just like Luther promoted that the definitions of repentance and justification be returned back within biblical perimeters, the doctrine of omniscience also needs to be returned. No one who believes in inerrancy of Scripture is denying omniscience… they are just asking that it be Scripturally defined and not continue to be defined by the neo-platonic corruption of it, made popular in Christianity by Augustine.
heather
Honest question: Where is the Scripture to back this up?’ (God’s plans being finalized before creation”
rhutchin
Your question is whether God’s plans take “everything ” into account…..
br.d
Heather do you see how this Calvinist response subtly works to shift from (thus evade) the TRUTH of the question?
rhutchin
If we agree that God knows everything that is to happen, then we must agree that God causes everything.
br.d
This is another part of the Calvinist’s shifting strategy
William Lane Craig shows how this is fallacious
Here: youtube.com/watch?v=mXUMhSmeivE
I know this is far away from the post I wrote (I couldn’t find a way to get this comment to fit right after my post), but I wanted to add one small clarification to my post “Why Is Calvinism So Dangerous?”
In point #16, when I say “Only Calvinists can really understand the Bible …” what it should say is that “According to Calvinism, only Calvinists can really understand the Bible…” On my blog, the “What The Bible says” part would be in one color, and the “What Calvinism Says” part would be in a different color. So the differentiation would be clear on my blog. But the colors didn’t show up here.
heather writes, “when I say “Only Calvinists can really understand the Bible …” what it should say is that “According to Calvinism, only Calvinists can really understand the Bible…”
You should say, “Anyone who understands the Bible would become a Calvinist.”
BR.D., It’s interesting that Rhutchin (or any Calvinist) would say that events would happen in the same way, with or without Calvi-god’s influence. Where is the sovereignty in that!?! How can their God be as sovereign as they say He is if He really has no influence over the events of the world, no ability to change it? To make Him not responsible for sin, they have to ultimately deny their view of His sovereignty. They contradict themselves too much to be taken seriously. It’s amazing. And amusing. In a sad, pathetic way.
FOH, thanks for the encouragement and Shapiro video suggestion. I’ll have to watch it. I started it the other day, but got interrupted. Sounds like it should be interesting.
On the Shapiro video – there is just a tiny segment there where she talks about being Calvinist.
Which I found surprising – since for the most part – the demographics of Calvinism are mostly white Anglo-saxon males. :-]
On rhutchin’s arguments – and arguments I’ve seen with other Calvinists – what they boldly assert with one hand – they eventually retract with the other. However they don’t want to get caught doing that – for the obvious reason. So the retraction part is typically done in a very subtle way – using highly inferential language.
For example – in one statement – they will boldly reject [X] = TRUE.
And then later make another statement that only can be logically coherent where [X] = FALSE.
Or they will do the reverse.
This is why observers call Calvinist thinking Double-Think – and its outward expression Double-Speak.
John Calvin for example taught the THEOS determines all things in every part.
But then later he instructs his disciples to -quote “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”.
Which as you can see – is the total reverse.
I call this Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern – and its quite ubiquitous with them.
If you stay on the look-out you’ll observe Calvinists frequently enunciating these three:
1) “mere” permission does not exist.
But then later make 100 statements *AS-IF* it does
2) Divine Foreknowledge via observation does not exist.
But then later make 100 statements *AS-IF* it does.
3) Creatures make absolutely no autonomous decisions.
But then later make 100 statements *AS-IF* they do.
If you watch for it – you will observe this with rhutchin’s posts.
Occasionally he will make a very bold statement – perhaps to the effect that “mere” permission does not exist because of divine sovereignty. But just wait and he’ll later make 100 statements that INFER “mere” permission.
And he exhibits zero discernment to recognize those statements as Double-Speak.
br.d,
There is an important observation to make in light of point #3.
3) “Creatures make absolutely no autonomous decisions.”
RH is very clear that man IS FREE and always does what his heart desires (meaning….he is autonomously doing evil…the only thing he wants to do). As in…”he is completely free to do what he wants….and he does…. only evil.”
But where that falls apart is with believers: we continue to sin and the silly axiom no longer applies. No one can say that “all our heart wants to do is evil” —-so God let’s us.
That makes a mockery of the new birth and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Not to mention that God gives us the Holy Spirit, the Word, and commands so that we wont sin. But we do. That cannot possibly be the “will of God.” But it is to Calvinists! The “hidden, secret, sovereign will of God.”
Excellent point. How do Calvinists explain the sin and failures of the regenerated, faithful elect? Now that the believer has been given faith, and regenerated, why would he ever sin? And I know they believe that believers sin, as I heard more times than I care to remember that we all ‘sin in thought word and deed every day’. Sorta seems like a God in control might differentiate a little more between what he ordains for the elect and what he ordains for the reprobate – sometimes it’s hard to tell them apart.
TS00 writes, “How do Calvinists explain the sin and failures of the regenerated, faithful elect? Now that the believer has been given faith, and regenerated, why would he ever sin?”
You know why as does FOH and br.d Paul addresses this issue in Romans 7. So, why do you ask the question whose answer you know??
rhutchin
You know why as does FOH and br.d Paul addresses this issue in Romans 7. So, why do you ask the question whose answer you know??
br.d
One can save oneself endless tail-chasing square-circles and married bachelors – by never making the mistake of conflating Calvinism with scripture. :-]
FOH
There is an important observation to make in light of point #3.
3) “Creatures make absolutely no autonomous decisions.”
RH is very clear that man IS FREE and always does what his heart desires (meaning….he is autonomously doing evil…the only thing he wants to do). As in…”he is completely free to do what he wants….and he does…. only evil.”
br.d
I agree FOH!
But for me – the critical thing is not what the Calvinist tells you – (rhutchin for example).
The most critical information is what the Calvinist will NOT tell you.
Yes it is true – the creature is free to do what Calvin’s god AUTHORS/RENDERS-CERTAIN the creature do.
But the creature is *NOT FREE* to refrain from what Calvin’s god AUTHORS/RENDERS-CERTAIN.
Now the Calvinist knows what Calvin’s god AUTHORED/RENDERED-CERTAIN by observing what comes to pass.
So if it came to pass that the Calvinist sined – then the Calvinist knows the following logical consequences:
1) Calvin’s god AUTHORED that sin
2) Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN that sin making it immutable and unpreventable.
3) Calvin’s god DID NOT permit the Calvinist the refrain from that sin – because one cannot refrain from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
4) Calvin’s god DID NOT provide a way of escape for that sin – because there is no escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
You can easily see why the Calvinist will want to focus on the tiny little FREEDOM the creature has.
And totally HIDE the rest
rhutchin’s strategy is to find ways to make those 4 consequences APPEAR as if they don’t exist.
FOH
But where that falls apart is with believers: we continue to sin and the silly axiom no longer applies. No one can say that “all our heart wants to do is evil” —-so God let’s us.
br.d
Yes I think Calvinists have a whole lot of logical holes in their system – and you’ve hit on one.
The Calvinist wants to AUTO-MAGICALLY assume he is “elect” and not TOTALLY DEPRAVED any longer.
But you probably know that Calvinists don’t hold that same assurance for their fellow Calvinists – and anyone in their fellowship may NOT really be “elect”.
John Piper for example muses about whether or not his biological children are “elect”.
But notice he doesn’t present that question about himself.
You probably know that Calvinists tend to monitor one another looking for signs of “election” or “reprobation” in each others behavior.
In times gone by I’ve labeled this “Calvinist Tea Leaves”
The Calvinist looks into his brother’s cup of tea leaves (his brothers behavior) looking for signs of “elect” or “Non-elect” status.
FOH writes, “RH is very clear that man IS FREE and always does what his heart desires (meaning….he is autonomously doing evil…the only thing he wants to do). As in…”he is completely free to do what he wants….and he does…. only evil.” ”
As a former Calvinist, you know that either God is autonomous or man is. Both cannot be autonomous. Calvinists say that God is autonomous and man is always subordinate to God. Where people are autonomous is with respect to other people; never with respect to God.
Your issue is in God’s exercise of His autonomy over man.
Then, “No one can say that “all our heart wants to do is evil” —-so God let’s us.”
This from Jeremiah, “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” and Genesis 6, “…the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Of course, you know this. So, Yes, God was watching it all play out and does nothing – this consistent with His purpose and eternal plan.
Then, “God…commands so that we wont sin. But we do. That cannot possibly be the ‘will of God.’”
If it were not the will of God, then God would step in and prevent it as He both knows what is happening and has the power to affect any outcome He wills.
rhutchin
As a former Calvinist, you know that either God is autonomous or man is. Both cannot be autonomous.
br.d
Here is one of those EXPLICIT statements.
Now we’ll just wait and watch for the 100 INFERENTIAL statements attributing some degree of autonomy to man. :-]
br.d writes, “and arguments I’ve seen with other Calvinists – what they boldly assert with one hand – they eventually retract with the other.”
Yet, br.d is never quite able to show the Scriptures where the Calvinists do this. Just another bold, unsubstantiated claim by br.d
br.d
“and arguments I’ve seen with other Calvinists – what they boldly assert with one hand – they eventually retract with the other.”
rhutchin
Yet, br.d is never quite able to show the Scriptures where the Calvinists do this. Just another bold, unsubstantiated claim by br.d
br.d
No problem! We just wait and watch Calvinist posts which are ALWAYS guaranteed to provide all the examples we need. :-]
Heather writes, “It’s interesting that Rhutchin (or any Calvinist) would say that events would happen in the same way, with or without Calvi-god’s influence. Where is the sovereignty in that!?!”
That’s a good point. If God were not actively involved in the affairs of people, then Total Depravity would become Utter Depravity. If God were not continually active in the world, everything would be chaos.
However, without God’s help to do good, evil people would always do evil and never good (with the caveat that God is always restraining the evil; that people desire to do).
Gee, it’s so kind of Calvi-god to only ordain limited rape, child abuse, murder and genocide, when he could, being in control of whatsoever comes to pass, have avoided it altogether. He could have ordained a world in which no evil would have been desired, in which he ordained only righteous desires in his endearing, distant way of bringing everything to pass. Funny how this world God supposedly pre-ordained and controls would be chaos (as if it already wasn’t) if he did not continue to intervene with the evil he formerly decreed. Uh, how about just not decree any evil in the first place? Calvi-god is one confused or sadistic dude.
The obvious solution to all of Calvinism’s crazy, sadistic nonsense it to recognize that God created genuinely free creatures who can and do resist his will and disobey his commands; just as scripture describes. But that wouldn’t grant Calvies their coveted ‘get out of hell free’ card, which guarantees them admittance to heaven no matter how sinfully they live on earth. Because they are ‘chosen’. Such is more priceless than Casablanca’s two airline tickets out of Nazi-land, for which people would kill.
TS00,
You said,
“The obvious solution to all of Calvinism’s crazy, sadistic nonsense it to recognize that God created genuinely free creatures who can and do resist his will and disobey his commands; just as scripture describes. But that wouldn’t grant Calvies their coveted…..”
I thought you were gonna go a different direction. Let me just keep your first sentence and edit for another idea.
But that wouldn’t allow Calvinists to give their narrow definition of “sovereignty”. They constantly speak in black-n-white using only their definitions: “Either God is autonomous or man is.” “Either God is sovereign or man is.” “God has control over everything or control over nothing.”
Of course all of these axioms are Greek-philosophy-influenced, man-made ideas that are not found in the Bible. (Hint: just use some verse about how Great God is —and extrapolate out to these axioms).
This leaves them with no choice but to have God as the origin/ initiator of all sin, rape, torture…. (and the initiator of people’s actions trying to stop the sin that He initiated—- is your head spinning yet?)
But here is the real kicker:
They prefer that above version of God (makes the sin, and makes the people trying to stop the sin He made) over the God of Open Theism.
Horrors! They NEVER talk about Open Theism without the attached word “heresy”. For them, God sovereignly choosing to create a world where He (by design) leaves some outcomes open to man’s direction/decision is heresy and MUCH worse than having a God that created/willed/ ordained/ decreed rape and child-porn “for His glory.”
Which one is worse:
A “weak,” not-all-planning God who leaves some things open and interacts with man….
or
A “Strong” all-planning God who is the glorious source of all the child-rape in the world “for His glory”?
FOH writes, “Horrors! They NEVER talk about Open Theism without the attached word “heresy”.”
The issue here involves God’s omniscience. If God is omniscient, Open Theism is heresy (in denying that God is omniscient). If God is not omniscient, then non-Open Theists are heretics (in creating a god who cannot exist). One side or the other is promoting heresy. Of course, the Open Theists had to take a position against omniscience in order to give LFW to man. If God is omniscient, man can have free will but not LFW. I guess we know where FOH stands.
TS00 writes, “Uh, how about just not decree any evil in the first place? Calvi-god is one confused or sadistic dude.”
Are you taking the position that God is not omnipotent??
Then, “God created genuinely free creatures who can and do resist his will and disobey his commands; just as scripture describes.”
Do you mean. by “genuinely free creatures,” that they do not have a sin nature and that verses like Jeremiah 17:9 no longer apply?
TS00,
I bet you wont give into to childish, shot across the bow, goading, just like I wont respond to it.
Remember one main tactic for Calvinists is to pull out all the “ominis” and especially define them their way. They cannot abide by any difference of opinion, any other definition of any omni, and therefore we are heretics.
But we all know God cant make “married bachelors” or “squared circles” since in His sovereignty He has set some parameters that even He abides by. The difference is that we draw the line of where He limits Himself in a different place than Calvinists.
I like to remind people that I believe that “God does whatever He wants.” But that is NOT the same as saying all that happens is what He wants.
Calvinists believe (see Pink and most of the confessions) that ALL that happens is exactly what God wants. Let the reader chew on that a bit. Not permitted by God. Not sadly allowed by a Holy God, allowing sinful man….. Nope.
God wanted/ ordained/ willed/ decreed everything that happens. Period. His sovereign/ secret will decreed it, even when His “will of command” told us not to do it.
I also laugh out loud the minute someone pulls the ‘heresy’ card. Sorry Charlie, no can do. Heresy simply indicates disagreement with some supposed ‘authority’ who has a corner on declaring what is true. The only being that fits that bill is God. The rest of us, Divines and all, are mere men, who see through a glass darkly. No one, no king church, council or murderous tyrant of Geneva has the authority to dictate what others must believe.
Take Paul, who arguably had at least as much right to pull the ‘authority’ card as any living pope or council. Do we see him going ballistic when the Bereans didn’t unquestioningly submit to his assertions as gospel truth – even though he was indeed anointed as an apostle of the gospel by Jesus himself? Did he call for the green wood and faggots, in case the men chose to disagree?
No, he deemed the men honorable and commended them as an example to all, for listening carefully, then going home and studying scripture for themselves to see if what Paul had said seemed reasonable. The very thing I was constantly told made me ‘in rebellion against my God-given authorities’.
Heresy. Puhleeease. You bet I’m a heretic. I claim the right to disagree with any church, council, pastor or any man, living or dead. I refuse to submit to the authority of mere men, nor am I intimidated by titles or degrees. I too have been given the privilege of being led into ever greater understanding by the very Spirit of God, who is given to those who put their trust in Him. I too, am called to be a Berean, study and judge for myself whether what I have been taught is true. I will stand before God, responsible for what I believe, and he will not accept the excuse, “The teacher, whom thou gavest to rule over me, he gave me this doctrine, and I believed.”
God gave man a brain, a conscience and a free will, and we are expected to use them. Even, and this is going to the top, when God himself speaks, he gives us the ‘right’ to believe or reject what is indeed, complete, perfect truth. Unlike Calvin and other heresy hunters, God gives men the freedom to be wrong and to do wrong. No church or church ruler has the right to punish, certainly not murder, men for having ‘wrong’ beliefs. If they did, we would all be toast.
rhutchin
without God’s HELP to do good, evil people would always do evil and never good (with the caveat that God is always RESTRAINING the evil; that people desire to do).
br.d
Here is an excellent example of language that INFERS man having a degree of autonomy!
And we also get another treat in this one – we have again Calvin’s god AUTHORING events that he can RESTRAIN.
This language works to INFER “mere” permission – an event Calvin’s god is painted as not being the AUTHOR of.
We got two DOUBLE-THINK birds with one stone on this one! :-]
I think we should write a Calvinist dictionary. Of course, there would be so many alternate definitions, it would be rather pointless . . . but it would be fun to try and make sense of what Calvinists mean when they use words.
For instance:
Freedom: the ability to do whatever God dictates
Permission: the decision to allow what you have unchangeably ordained
Intervene: when God changes his mind, and prevents that which he earlier decreed from happening
Could be helpful, don’t you think?
Tsk tsk TS00,
I am afraid you got this one wrong:
“Intervene: when God changes his mind, and prevents that which he earlier decreed from happening”
Intervene: When God appears to change His mind “in real time” to prevent that which He earlier decreed from happening. The intervention (changing of His mind) were planned before time also.
He only swore to destroy them, then relented of that plan because He planned that all along, i.e.: for them to rebel, for Him to swear to destroy them, for them to repent, and for Him to “change His mind” about destroying them. It has nothing to do (and CANNOT have anything to do) with them repenting. All the steps were planned by Him from eternity.
Say it with me: It only appears that He’s changing His mind. He planned to change His mind “in real time” before time.
Repeat.
Repeat.
My bad. I have such a hard time remembering how disingenuous Calvi-god is. I always think of him as trustworthy and sincere.
You got it FOH!
yes – that’s a good idea TS00
Dr. Flowers will occasionally say that Calvinists use the same English language – but have their own unique definitions for terms.
However, the notion of Calvin’s god altering/intervening/preventing events which he’s made un-alterable/un-intervenable/un-preventable is about as irrational as a Calvinist can get.
br.d writes, “the notion of Calvin’s god altering/intervening/preventing events which he’s made un-alterable/un-intervenable/un-preventable is about as irrational as a Calvinist can get.”
Not irrational for God who builds all such decisions into His plan prepared before He created the world.
br.d
the notion of Calvin’s god altering/intervening/preventing events which he’s made un-alterable/un-intervenable/un-preventable is about as irrational as a Calvinist can get.”
rhutchin
Not irrational for God who builds all such decisions into His plan prepared before He created the world.
br.d
Nothing LOGICAL to prevent Calvin’s god from AUTHORING events which he then APPEARS to alter/intervene/prevent.
He just came make those events un-alterable/un-intervenable/un-preventable prior to altering/intervening/preventing them.
Not even Calvin’s god can make immutable = NOT-immutable :-]
My Calvie friends would say, ‘God’s ways are higher than ours. We cannot hold God to the logic of mere humans.’ Voila, they shrug off any and all logical fallacies and assure themselves of how humble they are to be able to simply accept God’s Word on faith. What they can’t see is that they are, rather, accepting one man’s interpretation of God’s Word on faith.
Many seem ignorant of the fact that logic is simply the application of the reason with which God gifted mankind. If God operated on a different sort of logic than do we, then nothing he did or said would make any sense to us, and we would be unable to understand any of his ways. Obviously he is far above us all, and we will never understand him fully, but that does not mean we should expect what we has chosen to reveal to us – knowing what we can grasp – to not make sense. THAT would not make sense.
TS00
My Calvie friends would say, ‘God’s ways are higher than ours. We cannot hold God to the logic of mere humans.’ Voila, they shrug off any and all logical fallacies and assure themselves of how humble they are to be able to simply accept God’s Word on faith.
br.d
Right – they MAKE-BELIEVE what they are accepting by faith is God’s word – when it is way to irrational to ever appear in God’s word. You are correct – they simply interpret scripture in whatever way serves their ends.
William Lane Craig:
-quote:
Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledged that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable.
TS00 writes, “Many seem ignorant of the fact that logic is simply the application of the reason with which God gifted mankind.”
Logic is the application of rules to arguments to determine their truth. Knowing that the Scriptures are truth allows us to use the truth of the Scripture to verify the truth of human arguments. Given that, why do so many commenters to this forum ignore the Scriptures in their arguments?
rh: “Given that, why do so many commenters to this forum ignore the Scriptures in their arguments?”
The inescapable error in the dogmatic fundamentalist: To interpret scripture differently from him is, in his eyes, to ignore scripture.
No one, and I mean no one, could rightly assert that the issue with non-Calvinists is that they ignore scripture. Honest communication cannot take place until individuals accept that all who believe in and seek to apply scripture are reading from the same book – we simply interpret it very differently. That has been spelled out here more times than I can count. The minute a guy pulls out ‘Scripture clearly says’ he automatically disqualifies himself from the conversation. He isn’t even trying.
If God intended to reveal himself through a systematic theology, he could have done so. Instead, in order to avoid this very issue of faulty interpretation, he presented story after story that demonstrates the problem and the solution he desires us to understand. The few verses that claim to be God directly speaking are the ones most often ignored by Calvinists, such as ‘I desire that none perish’. ‘Seek me and live’. ‘All day long I held out my arms to you . . . but you wouldn’t come’. ‘The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.’ ‘Repent! Turn away from all your offenses . . . For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!’
Instead we get pieces of poetry enshrined as soul-damning doctrine. Fragments patched together to create a horrid, cruel, unjust theory that God is a narcissistic, controlling monster who doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself. Pitiful. A complete rejection of the revelation of God, first in creation, then in the Law and ultimately in Jesus, which is unstinting love and mercy to all who will properly align themselves with the living, loving God.
TS00 writes, “The inescapable error in the dogmatic fundamentalist: To interpret scripture differently from him is, in his eyes, to ignore scripture.”
LOL!!! The inescapable error in the dogmatic fundamentalist: To ignore scripture is, in his eyes, ignorance of scripture.
Then “Honest communication cannot take place until individuals accept that all who believe in and seek to apply scripture are reading from the same book – we simply interpret it very differently.”
Actually, non-Calvinist tend to ignore the scripture that they don’t like. FOH refers to the 40-50 verses Calvinists always use and which he cut out of his Bible.
Then, ‘The minute a guy pulls out ‘Scripture clearly says’ he automatically disqualifies himself from the conversation.”
There are many Scriptures that are clear in what they say and mean. That is why non-Calvinists avoid them. A good example, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me.” Then there is, “No one can come to Me.” Another good one, “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”
Then, “The few verses that claim to be God directly speaking are the ones most often ignored by Calvinists, such as ‘I desire that none perish’. ‘Seek me and live’. ‘All day long I held out my arms to you . . . but you wouldn’t come’.etc.”
Does not God also say, “for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”…Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” You have been under FOH’s influence too long.
Perfect illustration of what I said earlier. Rhutchin is so blindly dogmatic that it appears to not even occur to him that there can be alternative interpretations to these, and most other verses, than his own preferred interpretation. This is what it means to be dogmatic, close-minded. The open-minded person looks at a passage and asks, ‘What are all of the possible meanings of this? Do biblical scholars and commentators suggest possible understandings that I have never considered?’
It is only when we treat scripture thusly that we can be less likely to stumble into one belief and never budge, however inaccurate. All of us have limited, faulty understanding, but the more open we are to ideas, discussion, new information based on culture, geography, and linguistic studies the more open we are to being led into the greater understanding the Spirit seeks to grant us.
I started out staunchly anti-Calvinist. Then I realized that I had never really given it an honest, trial. So I considered it with an open mind for over a decade, and imbibed many of its teachings. Eventually, after more investigative research, I found the inconsistencies, logical fallacies and stain upon the character of God too huge to accept.
Now, more than ever, I am eager and willing to study and ponder alternative viewpoints to what I have heard or believed in the past. I have no need to insist that thus and thus is absolutely true and nothing else. This is where I believe exists a huge difference between many former Calvinists and those still in the bubble. We have given both sides a fair hearing, often more than once.
But if you are committed to upholding a set system of doctrine, there is no room for independent thinking, or for learning and growing in knowledge and wisdom with the help of the Holy Spirit. All of your energy is put into defending what you have been told is the ‘gospel truth’, rather than seeking truth.
TS00… probably better to say “sounds so dogmatic” than “is so blindly dogmatic”. Thx.
Rebuke received. Will try to be more careful in my wording.
It’s not a big deal. If you have to vent, do it.
br.d writes, “Not even Calvin’s god can make immutable = NOT-immutable :”
God’s decisions reflect His infinite understanding of all things and His perfect wisdom and are perfect decisions. God would have no reason to change that which is perfect to that which is less than perfect.
br.d
Not even Calvin’s god can make immutable = NOT-immutable :”
rhutchin
God’s decisions reflect His infinite understanding of all things and His perfect wisdom and are perfect decisions. God would have no reason to change that which is perfect to that which is less than perfect.
br.d
*IF* Calvin’s god is perfectly LOGICAL (and that doesn’t appear to be the case) then he knows:
1) Any event he gives the STATUS of being [NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN] will not come to pass – and thus nothing to alter/intervene/prevent.
2) Any event he gives the STATUS of [RENDERED-CERTAIN] – not even he can alter/intervene/prevent
The STATUS of any event is either (1) or (2) above.
However, altering events is PERFECTLY logical in a world where “mere” permission exists.
If Calvinists hadn’t been robbed of it they wouldn’t have to manufacture FAKE forms of it. :-]
br.d
the notion of Calvin’s god altering/intervening/preventing events which he’s made un-alterable/un-intervenable/un-preventable is about as irrational as a Calvinist can get.”
rhutchin
Not irrational for God who builds all such decisions into His plan prepared before He created the world.
br.d
Oh that’s right – we do have the institutes of square-circles, married-bachelors, and false-truths don’t we.
The deity who makes things both exist and NOT exist at the same time – simply by building them into his plans! :-]
Ad Hoc Rescue fallacy
Description:
When one desperately needs to be right or to cling to a certain belief, despite any LOGICAL evidence to the contrary. As a result, one MAKES UP STUFF. This fallacy is also called Magical thinking.
Love: to care deeply about; to damn to eternal conscious torment
All: the entire number of a referenced group; the entire number of particular subgroups of the referenced group; only a select few
That turns goodness upside down doesn’t it
Desire: what God uses to make men think they have a choice
TS00
Desire: what God uses to make men think they have a choice
br.d
OH! I like that one!
An ILLUSION Calvin’s god gives to men to make them believe they can make their own choices. :-]
Br.d., you are so right about the critical thing being what Calvinists do not say. I’ve warned people about the same thing. I say “Don’t just listen to what they say. Because they will make it sound as good as they can. You have to listen to what they don’t say and read between the lines. Because that makes all the difference.”
Heather
Br.d., you are so right about the critical thing being what Calvinists do not say. I’ve warned people about the same thing. I say “Don’t just listen to what they say. Because they will make it sound as good as they can. You have to listen to what they don’t say and read between the lines. Because that makes all the difference.”
br.d
You are absolutely correct Heather!
I think the model of language we find with Calvinists – unfortunately follows the same model of language one finds in false-advertisements. That becomes a red-flag – as that model of language cannot possibly be Holy Spirit inspired.
The deception works, and will continue, because most believers, not to be unkind, are naive and non-discerning. Oh, they know there exist ‘bad guys’ ‘out there’, but trust implicitly in the guys in the pulpit, the gods of this world. Few would ever read scripture and wonder if these vaunted religious celebrities are any less idols than what was worshiped hundreds of years ago by the heathen. They condemn religious cults, without considering the one they are members of, which demands unquestioning submission to all that is taught within her walls.
TS00 writes, “The deception works, and will continue, because most believers, not to be unkind, are naive and non-discerning.”
Says the person who offers up numerous personal opinions with nary a Scripture for support.
I agree about the deceptive language and hiding what is really meant. Here is an attempt to take the spin off and reflect on what Calvinism REALLY teaches.
But before we get started just take a moment and picture the most aggressively hateful and evil relationship you have ever heard of. What does that look like? Does it make your skin crawl? It makes me cringe and frankly I feel sick to my stomach.
In Calvinism, the “Calvinist God” is the most hateful aggressor imaginable. Why would I say that?
Because according to their teaching before anything existed, when there was nothing at all and God alone existed, He alone determined what kind of relationship each and every person would have with Himself. Before as yet anyone was born or created, He alone dreamed up, designed, then created out of nothing those He specifically wanted to despise and destroy. Those He wanted to hate had no say in the matter it was all predetermined by God alone, before they were ever born or had done anything at all good or bad. God is NOT reacting to them and their sinful hate God is the aggressor, He is the FIRST one hating. In the Calvinist paradigm the argument can easily be made that man hates God because God FIRST hated man. God is the hateful aggressor and man is reacting to God’s hate of him.
Why did God, without coercion of any kind, want to create most people specifically to be hated and destroyed? The Calvinists answer is: This was for His Pleasure and for His Glory. This is the way that the Calvinist God gets the Most Glory. Who are you to question the Calvinist God and His ways ?!!!
Before anyone existed, God’s meticulous plan did not leave anything to chance His design and purpose was to create most women, children and men to be the objects of His Eternal unrelenting hatred and wrath. God never once intended to genuinely love them, or embrace them, He never once intended to authentically care about them. He has always desired from Eternity past for them to be excluded from His Love, this He does for His own Pleasure and Glory. The Calvinist God has always desired to create most people for the unimaginable horrors of damnation, the weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness brings Him the MOST Glory. He not only created them for this purpose He is also unyielding in His desire for their destruction, refusing to genuinely care about them, instead He always actively works to maintain their Eternal exclusion. He has never, and never will authentically offer them His love and grace. What’s more this is said to bring Him the MOST Glory and Fame. Could it be that because of Calvinists’ view of God the way of truth is blasphemed?
Now a Calvinist will use different words, words that disguise their True meaning BUT at the end of the day once you get to the bottom of what they are saying it will be the same thing. Calvinism distorts the image of God it profanes the Holy name of God and says it is glorifying God.
GraceAdict
At the end of the day once you get to the bottom of what they are saying…….Calvinism distorts the image of God it profanes the Holy name of God and says it is glorifying God.
br.d
Well said!
Yes – I agree – getting to the bottom of what they’re saying is what they hope you won’t do!
Which becomes a red-flag that internally they understand the problem with their own system – and are forced to find ways to paint a non-calvinist face on it.
Sadly, GA, you are correct. Even more sadly, few Calvinists I know would read your comment to the end. It is too distasteful, and they would simply turn it off, rather than consider whether or not it has any merit. This is why they remain brainwashed and deceived, proclaiming a hateful theology without fully understanding it. They refuse to seriously consider for themselves, without the Calvinist script and talking points, the logical ramifications of the so-called ‘Doctrines of Grace’, which are actually Doctrines of Death.
TSOO — You are correct that my post would probably scare off a follower of the John Calvinism system and he would likely not even read to the end.
I liken them to people who have a coin and only look at one side of their coin but when you flip the coin over what they affirm on side A has the same implications on side B but they refuse to look at that other side which is logically in total harmony with what they are saying on side A. For instance they say “before the foundation of the world God created the Elect and Always had his Love set on them, that God did NOT take into account anything they had done or would do. But instead God always planned for them to be in Heaven with Him. This God did before the Elect had done anything Good or bad it is Totally of God” When you flip the coin over and see the exact same logic now directed towards the Non-Elect we get what I wrote above. It is their logic and their view of God that lays these assumptions out, NOT our view God.
Graceadict writes, “When you flip the coin over and see the exact same logic now directed towards the Non-Elect …It is their logic and their view of God that lays these assumptions out, NOT our view God.”
Let.s rehearse the Calvinist assumptions again-
1. God is sovereign
2. God is omniscient
3. God is omnipotent.
If all we had was “God is omnipotent,” then God can save anyone He wants – it’s His choice.
Rather than pontificate, why not argue against God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, or His omnipotence.
rhutchin
Let.s rehearse the Calvinist assumptions again-
1. God is sovereign
2. God is omniscient
3. God is omnipotent.
br.d
In order to not play the fool – we always remember – what the Calvinist hides is 1000 times more important than what he asserts.
Let.s rehearse the Calvinist assumptions again-
1. Theological Determinism is AUTO-MAGICALLY ASSUMED – affirmed by divine sovereignty
2. Theological Determinism is AUTO-MAGICALLY ASSUMED – affirmed by divine omniscience
3. Theological Determinism is AUTO-MAGICALLY ASSUMED – affirmed by divine omnipotence.
Now we can go back to GraceAdict’s point about seeing both sides (good/evil) of Theological Determinism and the point becomes clear.
HINT:
The fact that the Calvinist spends 90% of his time trying to paint a COSMETIC FACE of IN-DETERMINISM on his theology – becomes the RED-FLAG that he internally acknowledges what GraceAdict is pointing to.
For further reading see:
What is Altruistic Dishonesty in Calvinism:
https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/21/why-divine-permission-establishes-free-will/#comment-34483
br.d writes, “In order to not play the fool – we always remember – what the Calvinist hides is 1000 times more important than what he asserts.
As I said, “Rather than pontificate, why not argue against God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, or His omnipotence.”
As br.d has shown, even he cannot argue against God’s sovereignty, omniscience, or omnipotence. br.d’s God does not appear to be sovereign; br.d’s God does not appear to be omniscient; br.d’s God does not appear to be omnipotent.
br.d writes, “In order to not play the fool – we always remember – what the Calvinist hides is 1000 times more important than what he asserts.
rhutchin
As I said, “Rather than pontificate, why not argue against God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, or His omnipotence.”
br.d
What was said was clearly noted – and we had wisdom enough to discern that what was HIDDEN was the important part. :-]
rhutchin
As br.d has shown, even he cannot argue against God’s sovereignty, omniscience, or omnipotence.
br.d
Here we have the FALLACY of the STRAW-MAN (someone supposedly arguing against divine attributes)
rhutchin
br.d’s God does not APPEAR to be sovereign;
br.d’s God does not appear to be omniscient
br.d’s God does not appear to be omnipotent.
br.d
Of course its quite NATURAL that that is how it would APPEAR
To one who FALLACIOUSLY equates divine attributes with Theological Determinism.
But we will soon see the determinist spend the other 90% of his time painting a COSMETIC FACE of IN-DETERMINISM on his theology.
By this he inadvertently reveals that he INTERNALLY acknowledges what SOT101 shines a flash-light on.
br.d writes, “But we will soon see the determinist spend the other 90% of his time painting a COSMETIC FACE of IN-DETERMINISM on his theology.”
br.d continues to duck the issue, he cannot argue against God’s sovereignty, omniscience, or omnipotence.
Rather, br.d has no argument with God’s sovereignty, omniscience, or omnipotence. His argument is with Calvinism’s faulty, literally damnable assertions concerning God’s attributes.
TS00 writes, “His argument is with Calvinism’s faulty, literally damnable assertions concerning God’s attributes.”
That’s fine, but neither he nor you seem able to identify Calvinism’s faulty, literally damnable assertions concerning God’s attributes (i.e., God’s sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence).
br.d
But we will soon see the determinist spend the other 90% of his time painting a COSMETIC FACE of IN-DETERMINISM on his theology.”
rhutchin
br.d continues to duck the issue, he cannot argue against God’s sovereignty, omniscience, or omnipotence.
br.d
Everyone here can see this is a STRAW-MAN – why diminish yourself further by chasing your tail for everyone to also see.
br.d writes, “Everyone here can see this is a STRAW-MAN – why diminish yourself further by chasing your tail for everyone to also see.”
When cornered, play the straw-man card.
br.d
Everyone here can see this is a STRAW-MAN – why diminish yourself further by chasing your tail for everyone to also see.”
rhutchin
When cornered, play the straw-man card.
br.d
This is where you go into you’re traditional “play-ground bully” routine :-]
Sorry it won’t work here.
Same ol’ rhutchin-go-round. No one is denying that God is sovereign, omniscient or omnipotent. There is, of course, a difference between affirming a concept properly defined and affirming a concept falsely defined, which is what we have here.
As has been stated here hundreds of time – rh’s replies always follow the same script, including internal contradictions – we grant God’s sovereignty, omniscience and omnipotence. That does not lead to granting Calvinism’s made up assumptions about what that must entail.
Note the script demands one avoid the dangerous facts, and interjects groundless assumptions. Rh completely ignores the ugly reality of a sick, cruel deity who is the inventor, author and source of all that is evil, sinful and leads to death. This fact is to be avoided at all costs, as no one in their right mind would embrace such a God. But, hey, let’s talk about sovereignty.
Which is exactly what GA alludes to. Calvinistic definitions of sovereignty demand that God alone is the source of sin, evil and death. Calvinistic definitions of omniscience demand that nothing takes place simply due to foreknowledge, but always at the fore-ordination of God – making God, once again, the sole source of all things, good and evil. Calvinistic definitions of omnipotence demand that only he can determine the destiny of individuals, thus he has deliberately, irresistibly predestined men to sin, suffering and death.
Well said TS00!
And with Calvin’s embrace of Theological Determinism it also LOGICALLY entails Calvin’s god is a deceiver.
He misrepresents his intentions and he misrepresents what he makes available to his creatures.
He presents a FACADE of what he wills for his creature – while HIDING the fact that his SECRET will is the exact opposite.
He deceives Adam into believing he will Adam’s obedience – while HIDING the fact that he will NOT PERMIT Adam to obey and he does NOT MAKE AVAILABLE obedience to Adam.
He does the same with Cain – and Israel.
And for the Calvinist – all of the promises of god within scripture are interpreted as what Paul calls “AN UNCERTAIN SOUND”.
The Calvinist doesn’t know if any promise of god in scripture applies to himself or not.
For all he knows – he may be designed for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
And deceived by Calvin’s god into believing he is elect.
TS00 writes, “There is, of course, a difference between affirming a concept properly defined and affirming a concept falsely defined, which is what we have here.”
OK, then let’s work on those definitions. I’ll start:
Sovereign: God rules over His creation and must necessarily decide all that happens.
Omniscient: God knows all that is in His creation at any point in time, past, present and future.
Omnipotent: God can do anything He wants and nothing can stop Him.
How do you differ on these?
TS00 writes, “There is, of course, a difference between affirming a concept properly defined and affirming a concept falsely defined, which is what we have here.”
rhutchin
OK, then let’s work on those definitions. I’ll start:
Sovereign: God rules over His creation and must necessarily decide all that happens.
Omniscient: God knows all that is in His creation at any point in time, past, present and future.
Omnipotent: God can do anything He wants and nothing can stop Him.
How do you differ on these?
br.d
Why EVADE the UNDERLYING DEFINITION of Theological Determinism?
But we already know – because of how IRRATIONAL, SELF-CONTRADICTING, and UNETHICAL it becomes under LOGICAL scrutiny
br.d writes, “Why EVADE the UNDERLYING DEFINITION of Theological Determinism?”
br.d again fails to engage,
br.d
“Why EVADE the UNDERLYING DEFINITION of Theological Determinism?”
rhutchin
br.d again fails to engage,
br.d
That is – not bothering to engage the superfluous.
But rather engaging with the UNDERLYING PRESUPPOSITION – which in this case will surface as IRRATIONAL, SELF-CONTRADICTING, and full of ETHICAL problems.
Best to look at the foundation which supports the surface parts.
Rather than FALLACIOUSLY treat surface parts as the foundation.
As rh well knows, non-Calvinists reject the assumption that sovereignty demands that God ‘must necessarily decide all that happens’. And with good reason. Scripture details countless incidents in which God declares such and such ‘never entered my mind’, and similar statements. How could such a statement be made by a sovereign, omniscient being who omnipotently determines all things? In fact, given rh’s definitions, sin could not exist, as no man could do anything other than what God has necessarily decided he must do. All men, without fail, would obey God’s will, eliminating the possibility of sin.
The second point is that even were men to agree on the definition of God’s sovereignty, omniscience and omnipotence, that does not equate to agreeing with how God has expressed those attributes. God could have, in lieu of his sovereignty and omnipotence determined that trees would explode in the fall, rather than drop their leaves, or that any man who did evil would immediately drop dead. It is one thing to say that God has the right and power to do anything, it is entirely another to assert that he actually did such and such a thing.
No one is denying God’s rights or power. It is simply the little matter of God’s goodness, love, justice and mercy that Calvinism’s definitions of God leave out. Rather than immediately condemn the sinner to death, God determined to offer men a second chance. Not because he lacked the right, knowledge or power to immediately terminate life – but he lacked the desire to do so. Indeed, he explains, he desires that no man perish, hence the beautiful unfolding of his plan of redemption, which offers forgiveness and life to all men.
This choice, and countless others, were God’s to make. Non-Calvinists do not doubt God’s rights, knowledge, wisdom or power. Only God had the right and power to determine what attributes his universe and his creatures would be given. God alone decided how much freedom and power to give human beings. He could have given them none and made them puppets on a string, or he could have made them completely autonomous, and able to do anything their hearts desired. Scripture teaches that his choice was neither of these extremes, but that man was given a great deal of freedom, while remaining subject to God’s (sovereign) potential overruling. God can indeed arrange circumstances that will head off a man’s evil intentions, or he can use the trump card of withdrawing the very breath of life at any time he chooses. The existence of evil proves that he does not dictate the actions of men, nor overrule their every immoral decision.
In sum, it accomplishes nothing to claim ‘sovereignty, omniscience and omnipotence’! Most men believe in those attributes of God. Such is no real issue, but a mere distraction used by Calvinists to change the subject when the ugly face of their theology is being confronted.
TS00
It is one thing to say that God has the right and power to do anything, it is entirely another to assert that he actually did such and such a thing.
br.d
RIght! And for the Calvinist this always comes out as:
“God is sovereign – and does exactly what I say”
Which shows how DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS Calvinism eventually conditions a person into embracing! :-]
br.d writes: “God is sovereign – and does exactly what I say.”
That pretty much sums up Calvinism’s definition of sovereignty! 😉
TS00 writes, “As rh well knows, non-Calvinists reject the assumption that sovereignty demands that God ‘must necessarily decide all that happens’.”
Yet even TS00 says, “Only God had the right and power to determine what attributes his universe and his creatures would be given. God alone decided how much freedom and power to give human beings.….[God’s] choice was…that man was given a great deal of freedom, while remaining subject to God’s (sovereign) potential overruling. God can indeed arrange circumstances that will head off a man’s evil intentions, or he can use the trump card of withdrawing the very breath of life at any time he chooses.”
This is no different than the Calvinist. It is God’s choice to give man freedom to sin or intervene and keep man from sin. All God’s actions to bring about specific events or give man freedom to bring about certain events are the expression of God’s sovereign power.
Then TS00 says, “The existence of evil proves that [God] does not dictate the actions of men, nor overrule their every immoral decision.”
That also is a decision that God makes, and necessarily must make, because He is sovereign. There is not evil that occurs that is hidden from God or outside His power to prevent and each evil action requires God to decide whether to watch as it happens and do nothing to stop it. God made all His decisions in eternity past drawing upon His infinite understanding of all things that He would do and that would happen consequent to what He would do.
Then, “God could have, in lieu of his sovereignty and omnipotence determined that trees…” notice the confusion. TS– says “in lieu of His sovereignty…determined…”
It is by His sovereignty that God determines – there is no “in lieu of His sovereignty,” at least not in this example.
Then, “It is one thing to say that God has the right and power to do anything, it is entirely another to assert that he actually did such and such a thing.” All agree here.
God is sovereign and God is able to exercise His sovereignty any way He wants. The issue is whether God exercises His sovereignty is all that happens.
Then “…God determined to offer men a second chance. ”
Here TS00 provides an example where God exercises His sovereignty.
Then “Scripture details countless incidents in which God declares such and such ‘never entered my mind’, and similar statements.”
That does not deny His sovereignty or His ability to express His sovereignty in all things. All those verses tell us is that never commanded the actions that Israel took nor did it ever enter God’s mind to command such things. Yet, God watched as Israel did these things – even knowing before Israel did these things that they would do it – and God expressed His sovereign power to do nothing. By action and inaction, God ‘must necessarily decide all that happens’.
All one can say is that rh’s belief in God’s ‘mere permission’ does not line up with authentic Calvinism. (As br.d so frequently points out.) He is welcome to the club, as few to none actually believe what Calvinism dictates. Rh, like most Calvinists, tries to make what scripture says, and what we all experience in logical, real time line up with what Calvinism asserts; it simply cannot be done apart from word games and semantic deception. I know many so-called Calvinists who believe exactly what their non-Calvinist upbringing taught them, but submit to the authority of teaching they do not fully understand, let alone genuinely believe.
(He was right about my incorrect use of ‘in lieu of’ – it should have been ‘in light of’.)
TS00,
What a great guy you are!
You acknowledged that RH was right with the “in light of” comment. That’s the difference between you and him. You are told about a slip in a term or phrase and you welcome the correction and acknowledge it. Bravo. I’m used to using the phrase “I stand corrected” or “that was my mistake” (since I have raised so many kids and made so many errors!).
TS00 and br.d,
No amount of pointing out the illogical concept of both being true (“rendered-certain” determinism and the “mere permission” of God heading off man’s evil intentions) will change the conversation.
RH and most Calvinists insist that both are true….. even though they cannot be at the same time. Grudem does (IMO) a horrible job of trying to explain that in his systematic theology books (“God reacts ‘in time’ but has planned to have those ‘reactions’ all along.”)
We have been on this rhutchin-go-round for a couple years now. Or is that merry-go-rhutchin?
IF his definitions of sovereignty and omniscience are true (the Calvinist ones) then God has “necessarily” planned all things (just by knowing them ahead of time). You boys just cannot upend that argument: He knows it….. it has to happen.
Unless you are willing to move to Middle Knowledge or Open Theism, then all future is fixed —- IF those definitions of omniscience and sovereignty are accurate.
FOH writes, ‘Grudem does (IMO) a horrible job of trying to explain that in his systematic theology books (“God reacts ‘in time’ but has planned to have those ‘reactions’ all along.”
Examples abound of God acting in time – all the prophecies of the coming of Jesus. God also destroyed the world with a flood, destroyed Sodom and the cities, pushed over the walls of Jericho, and on we could go. We always see God acting in the course of time. James says, “Known to God from eternity are all His works.” (Acts 15) Barnes, in his commentary, writes, ‘The meaning of this verse, in this connexion, is this. God sees everything future; he knows what he will accomplish; he has a plan; and all his works are so arranged in his mind, that he sees all things distinctly and clearly. As he foretold these, it was a part of his plan; and as it was a part of his plan long since foretold, it should not be opposed and resisted by us.” Does FOH see this differently?
Then, “IF his definitions of sovereignty and omniscience are true (the Calvinist ones) then God has “necessarily” planned all things (just by knowing them ahead of time).”
Not exactly, and I am sure you know better. It is by planning all things that God knows them – God knows what He has planned..
Then, “You boys just cannot upend that argument: He knows it….. it has to happen.”
Everyone believes this. If God knows it will happen, it really does have to happen. Middle knowledge says this much. Open Theism does too; if it did not then it would be denying reality (e.g., the prophecies concerning Jesus).
FOH
‘Grudem does (IMO) a horrible job of trying to explain that in his systematic theology books (“God reacts ‘in time’ but has planned to have those ‘reactions’ all along.”
rhutchin
Examples abound of God acting in time ….
br.d
Exactly what FOH was alluding to – thank you for affirming it.
And thus the IRRATIONAL conundrum that Calvinists are faced with – which forces them (1) Believe it TRUE – that all things are determined by the THEOS and in every part. And Then (2) go about their office – communicating *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE.
Thus Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking patterns and its outward expressions of DOUBLE-SPEAK
rhutchin
Everyone believes this. If God knows it will happen, it really does have to happen.
br.d
Only in Calvinism’s world of square-circles, married-bachelors, and true-AS-IF-false.
A syllogism on foreknowledge follows:
Premise 1:
Psalm 139:2-6 and Matthew 26:34 shows that God foreknows ALL events
Premise 2:
1 Sam 23 shows that God also foreknows COUNTER-FACTUAL events (i.e., events that never happen)
Conclusion:
It LOGICALLY follows – divine foreknowledge of an event does not necessitate that event is predestined nor necessitate that event will even come to pass. Or in other words there is no cause-&-effect relationship or necessary link between foreknowledge and fore-ordination.
Scripture does EXPLICITLY state that some events are predestined. But on the question of whether or not ALL events are the exclusive byproduct of METICULOUS DIVINE INTENT – the whole narrative of scripture does not affirm.
As William Lane Craig notes concerning Calvinist interpretation:
When one’s interpretation of scripture leads one into an IRRATIONAL CUL DE SAC – its time to question one’s interpretation.
br.d writes, ‘It LOGICALLY follows – divine foreknowledge of an event does not necessitate that event is predestined nor necessitate that event will even come to pass. Or in other words there is no cause-&-effect relationship or necessary link between foreknowledge and fore-ordination.”
LOL!!!! It logically follows that logic is not your strong suit. You concluded that God’s knowledge of actual and possible events does not mean that they will all be actual.
Then, ” Or in other words there is no cause-&-effect relationship or necessary link between foreknowledge and fore-ordination.”
Except that which God fore-ordains He then knows. If God does not foreordain an event even where that event is possible, God knows that also. God is not confused but you seem to be.
br.d
‘It LOGICALLY follows – divine foreknowledge of an event does not necessitate that event is predestined nor necessitate that event will even come to pass. Or in other words there is no cause-&-effect relationship or necessary link between foreknowledge and fore-ordination.”
rhutchin
LOL!!!! It logically follows that logic is not your strong suit. You concluded that God’s knowledge of actual and possible events does not mean that they will all be actual.
br.d
Right – but I did not make the mistake of concluding -quote “If God knows it will happen, it really does HAVE to happen.”
In other words – with foreknowledge it is NECESSARY that it happen – which is FALLACIOUS.
Or in other words there is no cause-&-effect relationship or necessary link between foreknowledge and fore-ordination.”
rhutchin
Except that which God fore-ordains He then knows.
br.d
With a RATIONAL being yes – but with Calvin’s god – its questionable! :-]
rhutchin
If God does not foreordain an event even where that event is possible, God knows that also.
God is not confused but you seem to be.
br.d
Sure – but of course that doesn’t effect the LOGIC just enunciated.
But Calvin’s god does have his LOGICAL conundrums – which Calvinists here are faithful to enunciate
Made manifest in Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK. :-]
br.d writes, ‘In other words – with foreknowledge it is NECESSARY that it happen – which is FALLACIOUS.”
Yes. Just like WL Craig says. Foreknowledge makes the future certain but not necessary. So, what’s your issue?
br.d
‘In other words – with foreknowledge it is NECESSARY that it happen – which is FALLACIOUS.”
rhutchin
Yes. Just like WL Craig says. Foreknowledge makes the future certain but not necessary. So, what’s your issue?
br.d
Not an issue – but a blessing.
When a Calvinist makes a FALLACIOUS statement – I’m blessed with the faculty to point it out. :-]
TS00 writes, “All one can say is that rh’s belief in God’s ‘mere permission’ does not line up with authentic Calvinism.”
I don’t believe in God’s mere permission.
TS00
“All one can say is that rh’s belief in God’s ‘mere permission’ does not line up with authentic Calvinism.”
rhutchin
I don’t believe in God’s mere permission.
br.d
Its Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern at work again.
For example: Believe its TRUE that Calvin’s god determines all things in every part – but go about your office *AS-IF* its FALSE.
So following the *AS-IF* thinking pattern – Calvinists will say “Mere” permission doesn’t exist.
But then craft statements *AS-IF* it does.
Its part of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Choke . . . gasp . . . lol . . . rh better find out who’s been hacking into his account and writing all of these posts positing that God merely permits evil choices rather than causes them. (And no, there is no distinction between ‘permission’ and ‘mere permission’. The ‘mere’ merely points out the enormous difference between permission and causation.)
TS00 writes, “rh better find out who’s been hacking into his account and writing all of these posts positing that God merely permits evil choices rather than causes them.”
Unless I had a brain freeze while writing a comment, I never use the term, “mere permission.” I have been known to say that God permits in the context of causing an event. The example is the stoning of Stephen – God permitted the Jews to stone Stephen as that was their desire while also causing those desires through their pride by such means as Satan and Stephen’s blasting them in his sermon. I forget what br.d means by “mere permission” but normally, he keeps his definitions hidden to better argue his position. There is an unique difference between permission and mere permission, but if you think not, then I will not use either term (which I try to avoid doing anyway).
rhutchin
Unless I had a brain freeze while writing a comment,
br.d
Of course not – that’s why they call it DOUBLE-SPEAK
Dr. William Lutz explains:
-quote
“Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing.
It is a matter of words and facts agreeing.
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is.
It is the incongruity between THE WORD and THE REFERENT, between SEEM and BE.” -end quote
The essential characteristic of DOUBLE-SPEAK is that it presents semantic signals designed to produce an absolute inference of that which is in contradiction to what one would otherwise explicitly assert.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book Calvinism a closer look explains how this works with Calvinists:
– quote
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false…
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.” end-quote
Precisely. It doesn’t matter if a Calvinist uses the terms ‘permission’ or ‘mere permission’, they constantly suggest that Calvi-god simply ‘allows’ man’s wicked choices, when this is 100% forbidden by their theological presuppositions. Permission, mere permission or any other euphemism describing God not being the author of all things simply cannot be permitted under Calvinism. And yet, holding strictly to this doctrine makes Calvi-god the author of sin, which few in the pew will tolerate.
This requires the Calvinist to – as you often point out – try to sneak it in without getting caught. Indeed, if Calvinism taught that God’s meticulous determination simply meant permitting men’s free choices, we would all be on the same page, and this blog would not exist.
TS00
If Calvinism taught that God’s meticulous determination simply meant permitting men’s free choices, we would all be on the same page, and this blog would not exist
br.d
So true! And there would not have been 500 years of Christianity chocking on its good-evil dualism.
I think this aspect of Calvinism is rooted in Augustine’s respect for Gnosticism which he mixed into Catholic doctrine.
And then comes Calvin – in his ardent worship of all things Augustine – swallows the camel whole.
Consider the dilemma the poor Calvinist is in!
Calvin demands they reject things like “mere” permission and creaturely autonomy.
So they end up becoming experts at word games in order to sneak those very things back into their system.
Can’t be much fun for them!
TS00
All one can say is that rh’s belief in God’s ‘mere permission’ does not line up with authentic Calvinism.”
rhutchin
I don’t believe in God’s mere permission.
br.d
It is critical to understand the psychology of Calvinism incorporates *AS-IF* thinking & speaking patterns.
In Calvinism concepts are:
TRUE *AS-IF* FALSE
and/or
FALSE *AS-IF* TRUE
So within Calvinist thinking & speaking – “mere” permission doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does.
The Calvinist will SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission (in camouflaged form) – while asserting he doesn’t believe in it.
This is a part of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK
However in order to get away with this – the Calvinist must be careful in his use of terminology.
For example:
rhutchin
Jan 3, 2015
God ordained that outcome by “ALLOWING” all that preceded it.
God choose to “passively neglect” by *ALLOWING* Adam/Eve to eat the fruit.
God *ALLOWS* “free” actions as even these work together for God’s purposes.
Here the term ALLOW is used as a replacement term for PERMIT – and the statement works to INVOKE “mere” permission in camouflaged form.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely explains:
-quote
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the INVOKING of
associative meaning, not real meaning.
By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence.
For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false [according to his own doctrine]…
-end quote
We must always remember:
The grand art of Calvinism – the primary characteristic of its language – is CLOAKED EQUIVOCATION.
As Norman Geisler in his book Chosen but Free writes:
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
TS00 writes, “As rh well knows, non-Calvinists reject the assumption that sovereignty demands that God ‘must necessarily decide all that happens’.”
rhutchin
Yet even TS00 says, “Only God had the right and power to determine what attributes his universe and his creatures would be given.
br.d
The creator of the universe has the right to make the earth square if he wants to.
To claim that the earth is square because the right create it that way exists – is IRRATIONAL.
rhutchin
God can indeed arrange circumstances that will head off a man’s evil intentions, or he can use the trump card of withdrawing the very breath of life at any time he chooses.”
br.d
This is a good example of Calvnist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Here Calvin’s god can arranges circumstances which he RENDERED-CERTAIN *AS-IF* he didn’t – so that he can head of the very things he RENDERED-CERTAIN.
rhutchin
There is not evil that occurs that is hidden from God or outside His power to prevent …..
each evil action requires God to decide whether to watch as it happens and do nothing to stop it
br.d
Another great example of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Here nothing which Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN are hidden to him *AS-IF* he didn’t FIRST-CONCEIVE them.
what a hoot! :-]
And here Calvin’s god is going to “so called” PREVENT – an event *AS-IF* he isn’t the AUTHOR OF all events
And *AS-IF* he “merely” permits some events.
rhutchin
TS– says “in lieu of His sovereignty…determined…”
It is by His sovereignty that God determines – there is no “in lieu of His sovereignty,” at least not in this example.
br.d
Trifling over words.
rhutchin
Then, “It is one thing to say that God has the right and power to do anything, it is entirely another to assert that he actually did such and such a thing.” All agree here. God is sovereign and God is able to exercise His sovereignty any way He wants. The issue is whether God exercises His sovereignty is all that happens.
br.d
Apparently not COHERENTLY – for this post started as a disagreement to that very understanding
rhutchin
TS00 provides an example where God exercises His sovereignty……“Scripture details countless incidents in which God declares such and such ‘never entered my mind’, and similar statements.”
All those verses tell us is that never commanded the actions that Israel took nor did it ever enter God’s mind to command such things.
br.d
Right its clear that those things were never the divine INTENT which contradicts Calvinism’s underlying assumption where Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of every event.
rhutchin
God expressed His sovereign power to do nothing. By action and inaction, God ‘must necessarily decide all that happens’.
br.d
Here we have the same old Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god is not the AUTHOR of every event.
*AS-IF* someone else AUTHORS them and Calvin’s god “merely” permits them.
Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK serves a wonderful purpose!
It reveals the Calvinist internally recognizes the very problems which TS00 is enunciating.
So Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK makes for a win-win situation for everyone! :-]
RH. Posted – Graceadict writes, “When you flip the coin over and see the exact same logic now directed towards the Non-Elect …It is their logic and their view of God that lays these assumptions out, NOT our view God.”
Let.s rehearse the Calvinist assumptions again-
1. God is sovereign
2. God is omniscient
3. God is omnipotent.
If all we had was “God is omnipotent,” then God can save anyone He wants – it’s His choice.
Rather than pontificate, why not argue against God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, or His omnipotence.
GRACE ADICT:
Provisionalists have NO Problem with God as Sovereign, as Omniscient, as Omnipotent we delight in these truths. Now, we do have a problem with how Calvinist’s redefine and twist those terms into meaning something very different from their Biblical meaning…but that is another issue for another time.
I noticed that you (RH) avoided putting in that list of attributes any of God’s Moral qualities such as: God is Love, God is Holy, God is True etc… When it comes to God, the Calvinist Worldview makes Sovereignty the most important attribute, standing in a category preeminently towering above all other attributes especially towering above His Moral Attributes.
What does this mean, and how does it play out in their teachings?
It means all His moral attributes are simply optional, some of which do come up more regularly but still optional. God’s Sovereignty can determine that anyone or multiple moral attributes of HIS need not apply for any given situation.
The Calvinist idea of God is that Sovereignty can and does Turn off and on any of His Moral attributes. Calvinist A.W. Pink helps us see what this means as he writes: “When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.”
In the Calvinist Worldview “Sovereign” means God does not have to function in harmony with HIS OWN moral nature. He can turn any of His moral attributes on or off at any time. To word it another way the Calvinist teaching is that, God’s attribute of Love is simply a small option that God has and if He rarely uses it there is no problem whatsoever that is what it means to be Sovereign. We would, on the other hand, say that God IS Love, His essential nature IS Love. Yes, He is also Omnipotent and Omniscient, however, God’s Moral attributes in a sense would govern how God’s power is expressed. A.W. Tozer has written “God is All of His Attributes all of the time”. The Calvinist’s Worldview and teaching would deny that as seen in A.W. Pink’s statement.
In this vein, Dr. Jerry Walls points out that J.Piper is mistaken when Piper asks, “How would a Sovereign God Love?” and then Piper comes to the conclusion, God does NOT Love all people, in fact God might not even Love Piper’s own son. Dr. Walls is right to say the question should have been “How would a Loving and Holy God express His Sovereignty?” Dr. Walls, starts with the assumption that God is all of His attributes all of the time and that would mean, when God expresses His power and Sovereignty it would of necessity be in total harmony with His essential moral nature (Holiness, Truth, Love etc…)
The Calvinist sees Sovereignty, with it’s redefined meaning of determinism, as being the Single MOST important attribute and all other attributes, especially God’s moral attributes, are simply optional, to be employed from time to time. When we understand what the Calvinist is doing we can more clearly see why for the Calvinist it is very easy for them to teach, “God has His revealed will but His secret will is in opposition to His revealed will”. This of course denies that God is Truth and that God communicates only Truth. The Calvinist, however, has no problem believing God can communicate untruth because Sovereignty trumps all other attributes and if God wants to put Truth on Hold, He can do that, HE is Sovereign. Sovereignty to the Calvinist means God is NOT tied to His Own Moral nature.
The Calvinist has no problem seeing God as hating most of His own creation from eternity past before any of them had done anything Good or Evil. For the Calvinist, God’s Essential Nature of Love, is NOT essential it is simply a small option that God can turn on and off (mostly off). This is also true with God’s Holiness, the Calvinist teaching has no problem with God being the author of evil because God can turn on or off any moral attribute at any time, that to them, is what makes God Sovereign. Sovereignty means God is NOT tied to His Own Moral Nature it is merely a small option that God can employ from time to time. This is why I affirm with more and more conviction that Calvinism knowingly or unknowinly profanes the Holy name of God. Calvinism by it’s teaching is leading people to believe God’s Essential Moral Attributes are simply optional and subservient to God’s attribute of Omnipotence/ Sovereignty. People are led to see a God who is NOT always Holy, NOT always Truthful and NOT Genuinely Loving most of His own creation just to name a few of the distortions.
Bulls-eye GraceAdict!
Scholars have a term they use to describe a characteristic of religious flesh: IDENTITY MARKERS
Jesus describes the IDENTITY MARKERS for the Pharisee who stood by himself and prayed
1) I fast twice a week and 2) I pay tithes to everything I make.
How a particular Pharisee kept these things became IDENTITY MARKERS for that Pharisee – allowing for spiritual pride.
Calvinism turns sovereignty into (but only they are allowed to define it) the premier IDENTITY MARKER of Calvin’s god.
GraceAdict writes, ‘Now, we do have a problem with how Calvinist’s redefine and twist those terms into meaning something very different from their Biblical meaning…but that is another issue for another time.”
But that makes further discussion impossible as further discussion presupposes that “Calvinist’s redefine and twist those term.” That’s basically assuming the conclusion you want to draw. Thus, you say, ” When it comes to God, the Calvinist Worldview makes Sovereignty the most important attribute, standing in a category preeminently towering above all other attributes especially towering above His Moral Attributes.” You cannot say that without presupposing that “Calvinist’s redefine and twist those term.” You need to prove that your points are true before you ask, “What does this mean, and how does it play out in their teachings?” Having embarked on error, you then increase the error, saying, “The Calvinist sees Sovereignty, with it’s redefined meaning of determinism,…” You would be correct to say that a sovereign God necessarily determines all things.
Your comment is on the mark, once again. Calvinism pretends that Calvi-god’s sovereignty not only trumps all else (pardon the word) but can excuse the vilest deed. The malevolence shown toward man by God would be condemned in any mere man, yet somehow, we are supposed to have lower standards for our expectations from a perfect and holy God?
Heather writes, “You have to listen to what they don’t say and read between the lines. Because that makes all the difference.”
Good point. So, when you see it you will point it out and explain the Scripture behind it thereby advancing the discussion. Right???
rhutchin
when you see it you will point it out and explain the Scripture behind it thereby advancing the discussion. Right???
br.d
Where its IRRATIONAL – shine a flash-light on that.
But of course we don’t expect the one who is invested in it to acknowledge or discern.
HOW NOTHING IS *UP TO US* IN THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM
The Oxford Handbook of Free Will
-quote
Aristotle succinctly put it this way:
“When acting is *UP TO US*, so is not acting”.
This *UP TO US-NESS* also shows that the ORIGINS or SOURCES of our actions are IN US and not in something else over which we have no control. Whether that something else is fate or God, the laws of nature, birth or upbringing, or other humans. – end quote
Peter Van Inwagen:
If Theological Determinism is true, then all of our neurological-impulses, desires, choices, and actions are the inevitable unavoidable consequence of immutable decrees, set in motion at the foundation of the world. And our every creaturely function is fated to occur at a specified time. Also, at the moment they are fated to occur, they do so framed and modulated by the state of nature, which exists at that time in which they occur. And the state of nature which exists at any time is likewise fully determined.
But it is not *UP TO US* what supernatural forces/decrees are set in motion millennia before we were born. Neither are any neurological-impulses, desires, choices, and actions decreed to infallibly occur *UP TO US*. And neither is the time these are fated to occur up to us. Nor is the state of nature, which exists at any time (including our own) *UP TO US*. Therefore the consequences of these things are not *UP TO US*. (Adopted from the consequence argument)
Hi Dr. Leighton…Thanks for all your work. This is soooo necessary. Keep it up. Don’t ever stop.
I have concluded that Calvinism puts some of God’s Attributes as simply optional. For instance the Bible says God is LOVE but the Calvinist says to himself LOVE is optional. God can and usually does NOT choose to Love and that is Good and Ok because Sovereignty Trumps any and ALL other attributes. That is why under Calvinism most are created FOR reprobation. They do not see a problem with that Because Sovereignty Trumps Morality. They do not see an Authentically Moral God but instead a Controlling God ie Sovereign Determinism. That is why they say things like:
“When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.” Arthur Pink (Here Sovereignty Trumps the Moral Attribute of LOVE)
RC Sproul
“Reformed theology can be defined as a commitment to the Sovereignty of God” (Universal Divine Causal Determinism)
Virginia Stem Owens who said in the Reformed Journal,
“Let us get this one thing straight. God can do anything he damn well pleases, including damn well. And if it pleases him to damn, then it is done, ipso facto, well. God’s activity is what it is. There isn’t anything else.”
SEE no moral constraints… I say God is Morally constrained but NOT externally, He is morally constrained Internally by His OWN Moral Attributes – (God cannot lie. Why? External constaints? NO But by His own internal Moral Nature that is Truth and Only Truth.
I say God cannot violate HIS MORAL Character BUT they say HE CAN and Does…But then they call this Violation nothing important because He is Sovereign and can do ANYTHING.
Their God is Powerful and Controlling BUT not really Morally Upright.
JONATHON EDWARDS’ THEOLOGICAL FATALISM
by Jeff Speaks – Professor of Philosophy – Notre Dame
Jonathon Edwards is a what we can call a theological fatalist.
He thinks that divine foreknowledge shows that all future events are NECESSARY.
Edwards believed his evidence was derived from scripture.
-quote
“It is very evident, that, with regard to a thing whose existence is infallibly and indissolubly connected with something, which already has, or has had existence, the existence of that thing is NECESSARY.
Edwards reasoning follows:
1. The past is NECESSARY. (rule of logic – the necessity of the past)
2. It was true in the past that God knew of events which are in the future. (divine infallible understanding of possible and future events)
3. It is now NECESSARY that God knew of events which are in the future. (divine foreknowledge)
4 Any NECESSARY consequence of something NECESSARY is itself NECESSARY. (rule of logic – transfer of necessity)
5. For any event x, it is a NECESSARY consequence of the fact that it is known that x will obtain that x will obtain.
CONCLUSION:
Future events are all now NECESSARY. (from 3,4,5)
br.d writes, ‘Jonathon Edwards is a what we can call a theological fatalist.
He thinks that divine foreknowledge shows that all future events are NECESSARY.
Edwards believed his evidence was derived from scripture.
-quote
“It is very evident, that, with regard to a thing whose existence is infallibly and indissolubly connected with something, which already has, or has had existence, the existence of that thing is NECESSARY.”
How about a quote from Edwards that actually mentions the term, “divine foreknowledge.” and ties it to necessity? All Edwards does here is say that a an existing effect was necessitated by its cause. What does that have to do with divine foreknowledge??
Sure – its in the further details of Edwards argument
If there be any such thing as a divine foreknowledge of the volitions of free agents, that foreknowledge, by the supposition, is a thing which already has, and long ago had existence. And now its existence is NECESSARY; it is now utterly impossible to be otherwise, than that this foreknowledge should be or should have been.
br.d quotes Edwards, “And now its existence is NECESSARY; it is now utterly impossible to be otherwise, than that this foreknowledge should be or should have been.”
Edwards is speaking of cause and effect here. The effects of causes occur by necessity and cannot be otherwise than are consistent with the causes. So, God’s foreknowledge of cause and effects is a foreknowledge of the necessary of the effects of the causes. This is different than saying that foreknowledge makes future events necessary.
Edwards begins this section, “Having proved, that GOD has a certain and infallible Prescience of the voluntary acts of moral agents, I come now, in the second place, to show the consequence; how it follows from hence, that these events are necessary, with a Necessity of connection or consequence.”
By “Necessity of connection or consequence,” Edwards ties future events to past causes. In other words, future voluntary acts of people are derived from reasons/motives that arise from invents in the past.
I’m sure that’s your way of trying to work around the edges.
And Jeff Speaks – Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame obviously has his own take on it.
Dr. Alvin Plantinga also found Edwards argument fails (see Alvin Plantinga – Okham’s way out)
But I know you have to hold to your own version of everything.
br.d writes, “And Jeff Speaks – Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame obviously has his own take on it.
Dr. Alvin Plantinga also found Edwards argument fails (see Alvin Plantinga – Okham’s way out)”
At least, they understood Edwards’ argument. Presumably, since they are smart guys.
That argument works both ways :-]
GraceAdict
BUT since this is unliveable Calvin told his followers they must live *AS IF* nothing was determined, since they don’t know what is determined.”
rhutchin
Yes. That’s pretty much the only example br.d uses. That is just a common sense approach for young believers until they mature and grasp the notion that they can trust God in every situation because He has the future under control. ….etc
br.d
There is something totally hilarious about this explanation – if we think it through:
rhutchin says Calvin’s instructions are for -quote “for young believers until they learn to trust god in every situation”
What rhutchin doesn’t see is that this explanation is itself *AS-IF* thinking.
Lets unpackage this:
In Calvinism:
1) If [trust] comes to pass – then Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world RENDERED-CERTAIN [trust].
2) If [NOT trust] comes to pass – then Calvin’s god RENDERED [NOT trust].
3) The Calvinist has ZERO control over what Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
Therefore the notion that a Calvinist has any control over [trust] or [NOT trust] is simply another manifestation of *AS-IF* thinking.
In this case thinking *AS-IF* the THEOS hadn’t already determined that – and in every part.
So rhutchin’s explanation of Calvin’s *AS-IF* thinking instructions is itself a manifestation of *AS-IF* thinking.
Oooops! – that would make rhutchin – (per his explanation) a young believer – who has not yet matured
What a hoot! :-]
br.d writes, “the notion that a Calvinist has any control over [trust] or [NOT trust] is simply another manifestation of *AS-IF* thinking.”
The “notion” comes from br.d’s vivid imagination. Trust in God is identified with faith, and we know that faith is a gift from God. The original gift of “trust” or “faith” is under God’s control and no one thinks differently.
Then, “rhutchin says Calvin’s instructions are for -quote “for young believers until they learn to trust god in every situation”
What rhutchin doesn’t see is that this explanation is itself *AS-IF* thinking.”
When God’s gives “faith” or “trust” to a believer, that faith can increase, so the believer asks God to increase his faith. God does this through means of the Scriptures by which the believer renews his mind replacing the old sinful nature with a new faith nature. God does not create super believers when He saves them. He creates believers who increase in faith in the process of sanctification. Given that it is God who sanctifies the believer, even this process is under God’s control and the believer can be assured that “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” As br.d states, God rendered this certain even before He created the world, so the believer has confidence in what God is doing in him knowing that “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
br.d
the notion that a Calvinist has any control over [trust] or [NOT trust] is simply another manifestation of *AS-IF* thinking.”
rhutchin
Trust in God is identified with faith, and we know that faith is a gift from God. The original gift of “trust” or “faith” is under God’s control and no one thinks differently.
br.d
I’m still laughing at this one!
Let the Calvinist tap dance in and out of his reality continue.
Thank you for confirming my statements (1 & 2) in my post above
rhutchin
When God’s gives “faith” or “trust” to a believer, that faith can increase, so the believer asks God to increase his faith.
br.d
And just like that Calvinist has ZERO control over [trust] vs [NOT trust] – he also has ZERO control over [ask] vs [NOT ask] and ZERO control over [Faith] vs [NOT faith]
But we know rhutchin
The Calvinist brain must think *AS-IF* those things hadn’t been long ago RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world!
So this tap dances right back into the *AS-IF* thinking pattern
The Calvinist brain is locked in it – and that’s what makes it so hilarious!
rhutchin
God does this through means …..the believer renews his mind ….etc
br.d
Another great example!
*AS-IF* the Calvinist has anything but ZERO control over what has been RENDERED-CERTAIN concerning his mind!
rhutchin
this process is under God’s control and the believer can be assured that….etc
br.d
*AS-IF* the Calvinist has anything but ZERO control over [process] vs [NOT process]
And
*AS-IF* the Calvinist has anything but ZERO control over [assured] vs [NOT assured]
The Calvinist need not worry his little brain about any of these things – since they were all RENDERED-CERTAIN before he was ever created by Calvin’s god.
And whether or not the Calvinist mind reaches that conclusion or not – he has ZERO control over also!
This whole thing reminds me of the Holodeck in the Star Trek – where the computer creates a SIMULATION world.
Calvin’s god could have saved himself a lot of trouble and simply not determined everything in every part.
Then he wouldn’t have to put the Calvinists brain in a SIMULATION world – in which the THEOS hasn’t already determined everything in every part!
The whole thing is just too funny! :-]
br.d writes, ‘*AS-IF* the Calvinist has anything but ZERO control over what has been RENDERED-CERTAIN concerning his mind!”
What the Calvinist has, as well as the non-Calvinist, is God’s declaration in the Scripture, of all He has determined. Thus, the believer reads, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him,” and then asks for wisdom. Then, “he reads, “Yet you do not have because you do not ask,” so he asks God for everything.
br.d
*AS-IF* the Calvinist has anything but ZERO control over what has been RENDERED-CERTAIN concerning his mind!”
rhutchin
What the Calvinist has….is God’s declaration in the Scripture,
br.d
AH! But for the Calvinist scripture represents Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will – and not his SECRET will.
And the Calvinist can’t know the SECRET will – cuz that is SECRET.
So the Calvinist has absolutely no way of knowing what Calvin’s god’s TRUE will is – cuz that is a SECRET.
Its a good thing for the Calvinist
He can go about his office *AS-IF* the ENUNCIATED will is the exact same thing as the SECRET will.
Or he could simply become mature and learn to trust – the probability – the SECRET will for him is the lake of fire
For Calvin’s god’s good pleasure of course.
That’s what makes it all worthwhile.
br.d writes, “But for the Calvinist scripture represents Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will – and not his SECRET will.”
God’s enunciated will is revealed in the Scriptures to all believers to their benefit, encouragement, growth, etc.
Then, “And the Calvinist can’t know the SECRET will – cuz that is SECRET.”
God has not revealed everything to believers. All believers recognize this.
Then, “He can go about his office *AS-IF* the ENUNCIATED will is the exact same thing as the SECRET will.”
No *AS-IF* required. God’s enunciated will is God’s secret will revealed – thus, no longer secret. The believer can live his life according to God’s enunciated will and do so confidently.
br.d
But for the Calvinist scripture represents Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will – and not his SECRET will.”
And his SECRET will has a high probability of being directly opposed to his ENUNCIATED will
rhutchin
God’s enunciated will is revealed in the Scriptures to all believers to their benefit, encouragement, growth, etc.
br.d
So the Calvinist learns how to perform MENTAL BLOCKING techniques which allow him to go about his office *AS-IF* the ENUNCIATED will – is not directly opposed to the SECRET will. And the Non-Calvinist gets to observe the Calvinist exist in his little world of *AS-IF* thinking.
And the Calvinist can’t know the SECRET will – cuz that is SECRET.”
rhutchin
God has not revealed everything to believers. All believers recognize this.
br.d
But only the Calvinist (in the back of his mind) knows the high probability – the SECRET will is directly opposed to the ENUNCIATED will.
The Calvinist *CAN* go about his office *AS-IF* the ENUNCIATED will is the exact same thing as the SECRET will.”
rhutchin
No *AS-IF* required. God’s enunciated will is God’s secret will revealed – thus, no longer secret.
br,d
Oh but for the Calvinist its not that simple.
For example the ENUNCIATED will states
“I know the plans I have for you to give you a future and a hope”
And
“For you are all the children of god through faith”
While at the same time Calvin’s god holds out salvation as a -quote “Savor of condemnation” to a -quote “A LARGE MIXTURE” of Calvinists. Leading these Calvinists to believe they are “elect” for a temporary time.
Then at some point he will -quote “Strike them with greater blindness”.
During this temporary time these Calvinists are thus deceived by Calvin’s god into believing they are “elect”
They go about their office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will (in scripture) is his SECRET will (for their salvation) – when in fact his SECRET will for them is the lake of fire.
rhutchin
The believer *CAN* live his life according to God’s enunciated will and do so confidently.
br.d
Sure the Calvinist *CAN* do that.
But does he always?
Of course the answer is no.
So that fact informs us that the Calvinist is taught to maintain a MENTAL DISPOSITION.
He is to ASSUME Calvin’s god’s SECRET will for his life is the ENUNCIATED will he reads in scripture.
In the mean time Calvin’s god’s SECRET will for him may be the lake of fire.
So here is what SOT101 readers can see from this thread.
You don’t need anyone to explain to you what *AS-IF* thinking is.
You simply refuse to acknowledge its part of Calvinist thinking.
In the mean time – SOT101 readers get a kick out of watching you manifest *AS-IF* thinking in a large percentage of your posts.
Now thats a win- win situation for everyone! :-]
br.d writes, ‘So the Calvinist learns how to perform MENTAL BLOCKING techniques which allow him to go about his office *AS-IF* the ENUNCIATED will – is not directly opposed to the SECRET will. And the Non-Calvinist gets to observe the Calvinist exist in his little world of *AS-IF* thinking.”
God’s enunciated will is God’s secret will revealed. There are different types of God’s revealed/enunciated will.
!. Conditional Promises A – e.g., If one lacks wisdom, he can ask of God and receive. A person asks; a person receives.
2. Conditional promises B – e.g., Ten commandment. the person who obeyed was blessed; the person who disobeyed was cursed.
3. Prophecy – e.g., Daniel 9. That which God enunciated in prophecy occurred.
4. Conditional prophecy – e.g., Jonah and the prophecy concerning Ninevah. Continue in sin and be destroyed; repent and be saved.
5. All past events are God’s secret will revealed/enunciated in history.
6. The present and future represent God’s secret will still revealed. but conditioned on promises and prophecy.
Calvinists understand that God is sovereign over His creation and all events are according to His plan. God works all things according to the counsel of His will. Then God works specifically for His elect to work all things together for their good. This is His secret will revealed/enunciated in Scripture.
Then, “The Calvinist *CAN* go about his office *AS-IF* the ENUNCIATED will is the exact same thing as the SECRET will.”
The Calvinist go about his office assured that God’s reveled/ENUNCIATED will is the exact same thing as the SECRET will.
rhutchin
!. If one lacks wisdom, he can ask of God and receive. A person asks; a person receives.
br.d
AH – but what comes to pass is Calvin’s god’s SECRET will – predestined.
And where the SECRET will is the opposite of this – in such case the decree DOES NOT PERMIT this.
rhutchin
2. Ten commandment. the person who obeyed was blessed; the person who disobeyed was cursed.
br.d
And where the SECRET will is the person disobey the commandment then (1) the person is NOT PERMITTED to disobey the SECRET will – and thus (2) the person is NOT PERMITTED to obey the commandment
rhutchin
3.That which God enunciated in prophecy occurred.
br.d
AH- but for the Calvinist – that can be good or it could be evil.
Calvin’s god may will the good for someone else and will the evil for the Calvinist.
The benefit to the Calvinist who receives the evil -is that he gets to know it is for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure
rhutchin
4. Jonah and the prophecy concerning Ninevah. Continue in sin and be destroyed; repent and be saved.
br.d
AH- But if Calvin’s god’s SECRET will is that the Calvinist continue in sin – then the Calvinist cannot disobey the SECRET will.
Which means he is NOT PERMITTED to NOT SIN (doing so would falsify Calvin’s god SECRET will).
rhutchin
5. All past events are God’s secret will revealed/enunciated in history.
br.d
And that SECRET will can be a blessing for someone else and damnation for the Calvinist.
The benefit to the Calvinist who receives the evil -is that he gets to know it is for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure
rhutchin
6. The present and future represent God’s secret will still revealed. but conditioned on promises and prophecy.
br.d
Conditioned on what Calvin’s god decrees at the foundation of the world
Which for the Calvinist could be good – and could just as easily be evil.
The Calvinist gets the extra blessing of knowing Calvin’s god is expressing his love for him by decreeing his damnation.
rhutchin
Calvinists understand that God is sovereign over His creation and all events are according to His plan.
br.d
Right – and that’s how blessed they are to know Calvin’s god may have designed them to be in that -quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of those whom Calvin’s god – quite “Holds out salvation as a savor of condemnation”. These Calvinists get the blessing of being deceived into believing they are Holy Spirit led – when the truth is they are TOTALLY DEPRAVED and don’t know it.
rhutchin
God works specifically for His elect to work all things together for their good.
br.d
And the “elect” are INVISIBLE – so the Calvinist gets the extra blessing of not knowing for sure if he is “elect” or designed for the lake of fire.
rhutchin
The Calvinist go about his office assured that God’s reveled/ENUNCIATED will is the exact same thing as the SECRET will.
br.d
Unless Calvin’s god’s SECRET will is that he designed the Calvinist as a vessel of wrath.
And also the Calvinist has the extra special blessing of knowing that the “MANY” are designed as vessels of wrath.
And the “FEW” are not.
And that raised the probability of him being one.
He can be thankful he may have been blessed by destiny – chosen for damnation.
Also on this last one – if it comes to pass that the Calvinist sins – then he knows it must have been the SECRET will because the SECRET will is known by what comes to pass. And in such case the SECRET will was the direct opposite of the ENUNCIATED will.
Historically – when that happens frequently enough to a Calvinist – the rest of the Calvinist flock begins to question his election. And if he falls away – they will say his NON election must have been the SECRET will. And after that unless the SECRET will manifests a turn-around they will say the SECRET will is probably for that Calvinists damnation and perhaps he was designed for the lake of fire.
Aren’t Calvinists blessed to have all of that SECRET will GNOSIS! :-]
Thanks BR.D
This is exactly what I see happening virtually every single day. But they are so clever at dancing back and forth…that is like you say one of the prerequisites of being a good Calvinists is to learn this ability to dance back and forth from the revealed will to the secret will and just avoid the contradictions. Which are many.
Thanks for laying it out as you did.
Thank you GraceAdict – Very Appreciated!!!
What I’ve come to notice with Calvinist language – is that it predominates two primary modes.
1) Theological Boasting Mode
2) Theological Defense Mode
In Theological Boasting Mode – I observe the Calvinist putting a high emphasis on those things which separate Calvinism from main-line Christian Theology. Those things, which are unique and distinct to Calvinism alone will be highlighted and emphasized in very EXPLICIT language.
But the Calvinist intuitively knows – those things unique and distinct to Calvinism alone also come with a dark side – which includes the specter of “author of evil”. This is because these distinct aspects unique to Calvinism – are in fact borrowed from ancient Gnostic and NeoPlatonist concepts. With one of the primary characteristics being Gnosticism’s “Moral Dualism”. In mainline Christian Theology the THEOS is “Good”. However within the Calvinist system which as this aspect of “Moral Dualism” the THEOS is not simply “Good”. He is “Good-Evil”. Good and Evil are Co-equal, Co-necessarily, and Co-complimentary.
This is why so many concepts within Calvinism appear in “Good-Evil” pairs. For example – the THEOS designs some as vessels of honor and some as vessels of wrath. He has a SECRET will and an ENUCIATED will. He is both benevolent and malevolent. This “Good-Evil” characteristic of the THEOS is why Edwards states “The glory of evil is necessary for the glory of good to shine forth”.
Now the Calvinist intuitively knows his Theology contains a dark side. But he won’t acknowledge it. When he is in Theological boasting Mode – this dark side is not in view – so he can proudly boast about those aspects of his doctrine which are unique and distinctive of Calvinism alone. And in these situations – his Boasting Mode is non-problematic for him.
The problem arises where the specter of the dark side becomes apparent – brought about by the Logical Consequences of those very unique distinctives. When this becomes the case – the Calvinist instantly switches into Theological Defense Mode.
Ironically enough – what we can observe in this mode – is language designed to strategically HIDE all of those aspects which he would otherwise boast about. To HIDE those very aspects which are unique and distinct to Calvinism alone. Hide them behind a camouflage of main-line Christian distinctives. This is what you see in Rhutchins latest post – trying to hide the aspects of the SECRET will AS-IF it is always the exact same as the ENUNCIATED will – which his doctrine tells him is false.
But between these two language modes – the Calvinist will spend about 1% of his time in the boasting Mode. And the rest of his time in defense mode. Where his language is strategically designed to HIDE all of those aspects of his doctrine which he would (in Theological Boasting Mode) be boasting about.
It’s a very interesting process to watch Calvinists flip-flop back and forth between these two modes
And we here at SOT101 can observe some Calvinists (e.g. rhutchin) as extremely tenacious and highly inventive in this process :-]
br.d writes, “if it comes to pass that the Calvinist sins – then he knows it must have been the SECRET will because the SECRET will is known by what comes to pass. And in such case the SECRET will was the direct opposite of the ENUNCIATED will.”
God’s secret will is that the believer act voluntarily and willfully with regard to His commands. God’s enunciated will is that the believer act voluntarily and willfully with regard to God’s commands. The result of God’s will, whether secret or enunciated, is that the believer acts voluntarily and willfully in obedience or disobedience. Why does God not coerce obedience? Because God wants the believer to come to love Him and obey Him out of that love.
Then, “when that happens frequently enough to a Calvinist – the rest of the Calvinist flock begins to question his election.”
The key point here is “frequency.” Any believer, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, who knows that he is involved in the same sinful behavior over and over would naturally be distressed (if he were not, one might call into question his salvation). The treatment by fellow believers is crucial. Paul writes, “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all?” The weak brother is always to be encouraged by what that Paul also wrote, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy–meditate on these things.”
Then, “if he falls away – they will say his NON election must have been the SECRET will.”
As John explained, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”
Then, “Aren’t Calvinists blessed to have all of that SECRET will GNOSIS!”
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists rejoice to know that God has made his will known to us through His word.
br.d
if it comes to pass that the Calvinist sins – then he knows it must have been the SECRET will because the SECRET will is known by what comes to pass. And in such case the SECRET will was the direct opposite of the ENUNCIATED will.”
rhutchin
God’s secret will is that the believer act voluntarily and willfully ….etc…… and does not coerce.
br.d
AH but the little catch there is that Calvin’s god’s SECRET will determines every part of what the Calvinist’s’ volition and will will be! :-]
As they say in Calvinism: What the “Large Print” giveth – the “Fine Print” taketh away. :-]
When that Calvinist sins frequently enough – the rest of the Calvinist flock begins to question his election.”
rhutchin
The key point here is “frequency.” …..etc
br.d
Thanks for affirming my statement.
If this Calvinist falls away – they will say his NON election must have been the SECRET will.”
rhutchin
As John explained, “They went out from us,……etc
br.d
Thanks again for affirming my statement
Aren’t Calvinists blessed to have all of that SECRET will GNOSIS!
rhutchin
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists rejoice to know that God has made his will known to us through His word.
br.d
AH but the Calvinist has all sorts of extra GNOSIS from the writings of John Calvin – who for example provides the minute details about how Calvin’s god -quote “Holds out salvation as a savor of condemnation” to a – quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of Calvinists.
The Calvinist gets the extra special blessing of GNOSIS – that tells him he may be deceived by Calvin’s god into believing he is saved.
And then blessed further – having been designed for the lake of fire!
Who wouldn’t want to run right out and sign up for that! :-]
Reading rh’s response, it appears the Calvinist believes he can blame God for his lack of faith. (Which gets to why I think people are drawn to Calvinism – no accountability for anything, ’cause it’s all on God.) I wonder why Jesus was dismayed at the little faith of his disciples, or amazed at the great faith of others? Surely he knew that faith was given and controlled by God, not the individuals?
Yes – good point TS00!
But then they do their tap-dance – don’t they – where they must use *AS-IF* thinking to not attribute [faith] vs [NOT faith] to having already been RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
*AS-IF* they had anything but ZERO control over it!
And that works as another excellent example of Calvinist DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
Who wouldn’t want to run right out and get some of that! :-]
TS00 writes, “Surely he knew that faith was given and controlled by God, not the individuals?”
“faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
“Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.”
“The just shall live by faith.”
“Just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day.”
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Yes, Jesus knew.
TS00
Surely he [the Calvinist) knew that faith was given and controlled by God, not the individuals?”
rhutchin
quoting scripture verses concerning faith
br.d
Now all of those verses for the Calvinist – are *ONLY* Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will.
Calvin’s god’s SECRET will has a very high probability of being the exact opposite
Its surely a good thing for the Calvinist to have *AS-IF* thinking!
He goes about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s SECRET will for him is saving faith – and not the lake of fire.
He’ll find out eventually though – which one it is.
HOW THE CALVINIST KNOWS WHEN THE SECRET WILL DOES NOT PERMIT OBEDIENCE TO THE ENUNCIATED WILL
Here is how the Calvinist’s system of the SECRET vs ENUNCIATED will works.
1) Whatever event [E] comes to pass at time [T] is a manifestation of the divine decree
2) Whatever [E] does not come to pass at [T] is also a manifestation of the divine decree (Contra-positive of 1)
3) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the divine decree
4) The divine decree is a manifestation of the SECRET will – and is never in opposition to it.
5) From (3-4) it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the SECRET will.
6) From (5) it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the SECRET will to be disobeyed
7) The ENUNCIATED will does not always come to pass
Therefore it follows:
8) Per (2) when obedience to the ENUNCIATED will does not come to pass – this is a direct manifestation of the SECRET will.
In such case the Calvinist knows the following:
A: the SECRET will was in direct opposition to obedience to the ENUNCIATED will
B: Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT the creature to disobey his SECRET will
C: Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT the creature to obey his ENUNCIATED will
Conclusion:
Calvin’s god commanding obedience does not necessarily imply Calvin’s god wills obedience.
Calvin’s god can command obedience – while applying a supernatural power to NOT PERMIT that obedience.
In such case the Calvinist knows that disobedience must have been the SECRET will
br.d writes, “1) Whatever event [E] comes to pass at time [T] is a manifestation of the divine decree
2) Whatever [E] does not come to pass at [T] is also a manifestation of the divine decree (Contra-positive of 1)
3) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the divine decree
4) The divine decree is a manifestation of the SECRET will – and is never in opposition to it.
5) From (3-4) it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the SECRET will.
6) From (5) it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the SECRET will to be disobeyed
7) The ENUNCIATED will does not always come to pass”
We can shorten and rephrase this for accuracy.
1) All events [E or ~E] comes to pass at time [T] as a manifestation of God’s divine decree
2) God does NOT DECREE the creature to falsify or negate the divine decree
3) The divine decree, or will, is God’s SECRET will – and is never in opposition to God’s will.
4) From (2) it follows God does NOT DECREE the creature to falsify or negate God’s SECRET will.
5) From (4) it follows God does NOT DECREE the SECRET will to be disobeyed
Then, “6) The ENUNCIATED will does not always come to pass.”
br.d does not even mention “ENUNCIATED” is his six(3) premises. On what basis does he now introduce it as his conclusion? Such appears to eb the unique form of logic used by br.d.
Then, br.d writes, “In such case the Calvinist knows the following:
A: the SECRET will was in direct opposition to obedience to the ENUNCIATED will
B: Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT the creature to disobey his SECRET will
C: Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT the creature to obey his ENUNCIATED will ”
Again, let’s sharpen this up and correct it.
In such case the Calvinist knows the following:
A: A person’s conformity to God’s SECRET will is in direct relation to his desire to obey/disobey God’s ENUNCIATED will
B: God did NOT DECREE the creature to disobey his SECRET will
C: God did NOT DECREE the creature to desire to obey his ENUNCIATED will
Then, “Conclusion:
Calvin’s god commanding obedience does not necessarily imply Calvin’s god wills obedience.
Calvin’s god can command obedience – while applying a supernatural power to NOT PERMIT that obedience.
In such case the Calvinist knows that disobedience must have been the SECRET will”
Better expressed in the following:
God commanding obedience does not necessarily imply God coercing obedience.
God can command obedience – while not coercing. obedience.
In such case, the Calvinist knows that disobedience must have been the SECRET will”
Thank you rutchin – for providing SOT101 readers with an example of how Calvinist massage language when something is TRUE but they want to take some of the DARK edges out of it. (i.e. HIDE certain logical consequences)
I specifically noticed you didn’t like these statements
3) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the divine decree
B: Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT the creature to disobey his SECRET will
C: Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT the creature to obey his ENUNCIATED will ”
We understand that “NOT PERMIT” and “NOT DECREE” logically equate with each other.
Which you inadvertently affirmed that with your statement:
All events [E or ~E] comes to pass at time [T] as a manifestation of God’s divine decree
Thus it follows:
Calvin’s god NOT DECREEING [E] come to pass is logically equivalent to Calvin’s god DECREEING [NOT E] come to pass.
And DECREEING [NOT E] come to pass is logically equivalent to NOT PERMITTING [E] come to pass.
But we understand Calvinist psychology and why the Calvinist doesn’t like to enunciate Calvin’s god NOT PERMITTING the creature obey his ENUNCIATED will. :-]
If RH – Really believed what he said in these last posts we would be in agreement on so much…BUT Calvinism is slippery
What the LARGE PRINT GIVETH the small print taketh away.
This is how Calvinist lure people in BY NOT revealing their true self… They want to sound like us non-Calvinist LFW people while all the while really hating what we hold to and hating the Idea of a GOD who authentically loves ALL people.
“God is most Glorified NOT at the expense of His Creation but in Sacrificially giving of Himself for All of His Creation” Dr. L.F.
This idea is Anathema to Calvinists instead they hold to a God who created MOST people for the express purpose of Damnation and NOT for Salvation a God who purposefully excludes most from His Love. This is the image of God that they cherish and embrace at all cost even to the point of twisting scripture to convince people it is True. They profane God’s Holy and Loving Name and then say they are Glorifying God while they do it.
Pretty easy for us to see from this – why Calvinist language is so slippery! :-]
Reminds me of a cereal company advertising their cereal as “Healthy” in order to increase sales
What they didn’t tell the consumer was the product was 50 percent sugar by weight.
In the manufactures mind the cereals “Healthiness” was deemed REAL.
Similarly, we can have the case – what is deemed NOT REAL in Calvinism by the insightful Non-Calvinist – will be deemed REAL by the Calvinist.
Obviously for the sake of selling the product. :-]
BR.D
Interesting that you bring up cereal. My dad used to always observe that on cereal boxes it says “enriched with vitamins”. He would say the process used to make cereal removed most of the vitamins then after removing it all they put back a few and called it enriched.
He said it is like a thief robbing a man of 100 dollars and then turning around and giving him 1 dollar back and thereafter claiming he had enriched the victim.
Calvinism robs God of is Glorious nature of being Loving, Holy, Truth and Merciful then once in awhile Calvinism says something loving about God and thereafter claiming their version truly Glorifies God’s love and holiness. They rob God of His Moral nature saying that is what it means to be a Sovereign God. They think they have an enriched view of God but it is a view that makes God very poor in His Moral attributes. . Calvinism dishonors and robs God of His True Glory.
GraceAdict writes, ‘Calvinism robs God of…”
So, GA requires that God save all people and forget grace.
rhutchin
So, GA requires that God save all people and forget grace.
br.d
Firstly
GA didn’t say he “requires” anything of the kind – so this presents nothing but a strawman.
Secondly:
We already know that – per Gnosticism’s “Moral Dualism” Calvin’s “good-evil” god designs the vast majority of his creatures for evil (i.e. eternal torment in the lake of fire). So we understand evil as an aspect of Calvinist “Grace”.
As Jon Edwards would put it –
The glory of evil must needs be – or else the glory of good could scarce shine forth
RH writes…So, GA requires that God save all people and forget grace.
That is precious coming from a Calvinist where one of the Fundamental truths of Calvinism is Proclaiming that God does NOT LOVE most people NOR is HE Gracious to most people BUT instead hates most people even before HE created them. A God who deeply desires most of His creation to be the objects of His Hatred and therefor He irresistibly made them that way…as Calvinist Author A.W. Pink says it ““When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.”
It is only in the Calvinist paradigm that God Forgets Grace and Love towards His own creation, made in His image by God himself.
In our Worldview – God genuinely loves all people, created them out of love for love and it was this desire for a love relationship that God gave His creatures LFW to choose, ( choice is a part of being made in the image of God). Only in our view does man end up in Hell because he rejected God’s genuine love,grace and genuine provision for Salvation.
Under the Calvinist TULIP system – God never loved most people he created in His image, God never wanted to provide a genuine opportunity of forgiveness of sin for most people,
Under TULIP God gets the most glory by imagining and then creating most people for damnation, hatred and hell. He purposefully excludes them from heaven before they had ever done anything good or bad this is supposed to represent the God of the Bible as Pink states ““When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.” Contrast TULIP with these verses and L.F. quote below.
Joh 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
“God is Most Glorified NOT at the expense of His creation but in Sacrificially giving of Himself for All of His creation” L.F.
Calvinism embraces a Calvi-god that uses and even abuses His creation,created in His own image, He purposefully crushes His creation even babies to extract some bit of glory for Himself INSTEAD of THIS the Biblical image of God is a Demonstrably Good God who has Good will towards All men…while letting them choose.
GraceAdict writes, “Only in our view does man end up in Hell because he rejected God’s genuine love,grace and genuine provision for Salvation.”
LOL!! GraceAdict ends up agreeing with the Calvinists – “Calvinism robs God of [H]is Glorious nature of being Loving, Holy, Truth and Merciful …”
RH writes..LOL!! GraceAdict ends up agreeing with the Calvinists
GA Not even close…how people end up in hell is so different from Calvinism…. We agree that many end up in Hell but How they get there is a completely different worldview. I think even you can see that.
GraceAdict writes, ” We agree that many end up in Hell but How they get there is a completely different worldview.”
We both agree on how people get into hell (they are unrighteous and cannot enter heaven) – how they get out is the issue. You say they can only get out by choosing salvation. I say they get out either by choosing salvation or by having God step in to save them save them. My “worldview” has more people being saved than your “worldview,” and for some reason, that irritates you.
GraceAdict
We agree that many end up in Hell but How they get there is a completely different worldview.”
rhutchin
We both agree on how people get into hell (they are unrighteous and cannot enter heaven)
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) “how they get” what they get – is predestined at the foundation of the world. Calvin’s god uses his infinite understanding of what he is going to determine for every aspect/attribute of each and every person – and then each one of those is meticulously is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And the person has ZERO say in the matter – because Calvin’s god leaves nothing left over for anyone else to determine.
That’s why they call it *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism :-]
br.d writers, “And the person has ZERO say in the matter – because Calvin’s god leaves nothing left over for anyone else to determine.”
This God lays out in the Scripture, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” and “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” and many other Scripture.
But people are not innocent, as Paul argues, “…you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:”
Certainly, no one can plead ignorance about the desperate situation into which they were born.
br.d
And the person has ZERO say in the matter – because Calvin’s god leaves nothing left over for anyone else to determine.”
rhutchin
This God lays out in the Scripture, “For since the creation…..does not the potter have power over the clay,…etc
br.d
We already know Calvin’s god is the divine potter who designs the vast majority of his creation specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure. What else is new?
rhutchin
But people are not innocent, as Paul argues,
br.d
I never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism with scripture.
Scripture always ends up being twisted into a contorted pretzel in order to affirm double-speak talking-points.
rhutchin
OR you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, …etc
br.d
Oh ye – the riches goodness and forbearance of him who designs you for eternal torment in the lake of fire. Here we see the “Moral Dualism” derived from the Gnostic NeoPlatonist doctrines which Augustine synchronized into Catholic doctrine. And with “Moral Dualism” we have a THEOS who is “Good-Evil” That’s why so many things appear in “Good-Evil” pairs in Calvinism.
rhutchin
Certainly, no one can plead ignorance about the desperate situation into which they were born.
br.d
Of course – to be consistent – you mean the situation which the divine potter designed.
AH but you forget – in Calvinism the TOTALLY DEPRAVED are to dead to know the situation in which Calvin’s god designed them.
You either forgot that or you were moving in Calvin’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern again. :-]
GraceAdict writes, “[Calvinists] hold to a God who created MOST people for the express purpose of Damnation and NOT for Salvation a God who purposefully excludes most from His Love.”
Unless GA is an Universalist, he also believes in “a God who created MOST people for the express purpose of Damnation and NOT for Salvation a God who purposefully excludes most from His Love.”
If not an Universalist, then what is the problem?
GraceAdict
[Calvinists] hold to a God who created MOST people for the express purpose of Damnation and NOT for Salvation a God who purposefully excludes most from His Love.”
rhutchin
Unless GA is an Universalist, he also believes in “a God who created MOST people for the express purpose of Damnation and NOT for Salvation a God who purposefully excludes most from His Love.”
If not an Universalist, then what is the problem?
br.d
Here we have the fallacy of False Dilemma – or Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence – by leaving out other possibilities.
For the Theological Determinist (aka Calvinist) – Calvin’s god can create a world in which he can use his supernatural powers to NOT PERMIT creatures to sin. And per a determinism with a compatiblist definition of free-will – they would be said to do so FREELY.
That could be seen as a “Universalist” world.
But would represent only a superficial change to the current Calvinist system in which Calvin’s god uses his supernatural power to NOT permit people from refraining from sin.
Both cases founded on UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM.
However, other possibilities outside Theological Determinism do exist.
Fortunately the insightful Christian today is not faced with the Calvinist’s black-&-white false dilemma.
br.d writes, ‘Here we have the fallacy of False Dilemma – or Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence – by leaving out other possibilities.”
You are free to identify possibilities other than God saves all (GraceAdict)l or God saves less than all (Calvinist) in the world that God created.
br.d
Here we have the fallacy of False Dilemma – or Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence – by leaving out other possibilities.”
rhutchin
You are free to identify possibilities other than God saves all (GraceAdict)l or God saves less than all (Calvinist) in the world that God created.
br.d
Firstly:
GraceAdict will probably not agree with you claiming his position for him rather than allowing him to speak for himself
So Calvinist’s should not complain when non-Calvinists do that to them.
Secondly
As stated earlier – your false dilemma is predicated on two sightly different renditions of Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
As long as there are alternatives to that system – your dilemma is false.
Now I already know your next strategy is to demand someone show you an alternative – while you strategically claim they never provided one. So readers can easily find alternatives stated here at SOT101. But we already know you’ll refuse to acknowledge them.
So – as William Lane Craig states one viable alternative – (i.e. Molinism):
-quote
“It is a non-starter for its detractors to point out that Molinists have not proven the postulates of the theory to be true. Thus, even though there are in this case very good reasons to think that its key postulate is true, the Molinist bears no initial burden to prove this postulate in order to commend his theory as the best account of divine providence available.”
Now I don’t claim to be a Molinist – but its easy to see here – Molinism provides just as good or better an account of divine providence than Calvinism does. Hence your dilemma is false.
br.d writes, “Now I already know your next strategy is to demand someone show you an alternative – while you strategically claim they never provided one. So readers can easily find alternatives stated here at SOT101. But we already know you’ll refuse to acknowledge them. ”
We have GraceAdict who says, “God saves all people,” and the Calvinist who says that “God saves less than all people.” br.d claims that there is a third possibility that someone has provided before. br.d does not want to repeat that possibility (maybe because it does not exist), so can someone else provide it. I do not recall a third possibility.
Then br.d quotes Craig, “Thus, even though there are in this case very good reasons to think that its key postulate is true, the Molinist bears no initial burden to prove this postulate in order to commend his theory as the best account of divine providence available.”
Craig means that the Molinist does not have to prove his presuppositions. That’s fine, but it does mean that the logical structure of Molinism depends on those presuppositions and anyone proving any one of those presuppositions false proves Molinism false. Then, br.d says, “Molinism provides just as good or better an account of divine providence than Calvinism does. Hence your dilemma is false.” This is wrong as Molinism doesn’t say anything that contradicts Calvinism. Molinism deals with pre-creation events; Calvinism deals with post creation events.
RH writes…”We have GraceAdict who says, “God saves all people,” and the Calvinist who says that “God saves less than all people.”
I have NEVER said God saves ALL people…you invent out of the blue… I have said God loves all people BUT NEVER that He saves ALL people… this is how Calvinism works…saying if you don’t believe what I believe then you are a Universalist. Hog Wash…
GraceAdcit writes, “I have NEVER said God saves ALL people…”
How was I to know that you actually agreed with the Calvinists? Your diatribes against Calvinism ended up being a smokescreen.
GraceAdcit
“I have NEVER said God saves ALL people…”
rhutchin
How was I to know that you actually agreed with the Calvinists? Your diatribes against Calvinism ended up being a smokescreen.
br.d
GA – rhutchin is just chasing his own tail here.
When he gets like this I let him chase his tail all by himself.
He doesn’t need any help from anyone else to do that :-]
RH writes…We have GraceAdict who says, “God saves all people,” and the Calvinist who says that “God saves less than all people.”
GA “God saves less than all people” is what RH says Calvinism teaches yes that is really soft peddling what Calvinism really teaches. When Under TULIP God created most people for Damnation right from the start. Too bad we really understand what Calvinism actually teaches… “God saves less than all people” is what most Non-Calvinists believe. Once again trying to make Calvinism appear Much, Much better than what it really holds to and even trying to make it sound like us…while raising up a straw man to attack (Universalism).
Calvinism uncovered:
“Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because He is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.” Thank-you John Calvin for being upfront with what you really believe. Not trying to hide behind terms that mask what you really believe God to be like. Your Calvi-god is pleased to damn most of His creation. Not the God of the Bible…but definitely Calvinism.
Calvinist will avoid like the plague – enunciating “what Calvin’s god wills”.
As FOH so famously asks: “Does anything happen that Calvin’s god did not specifically will?”
He asks that question because he knows its a question Calvinists hate to give a simply YES/NO answer to.
BTW: Do you notice how RH spends 99% of his time in Theological Defense mode?
Something about Calvinist Theology forces them into that mode.
Poor things! :-]
br.d writes, “Do you notice how RH spends 99% of his time in Theological Defense mode?”
No better defense mode than explaining the Scriptures – “…always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;”
br.d
Do you notice how RH spends 99% of his time in Theological Defense mode?”
rhutchin
No better defense mode than explaining the Scriptures
br.d
*AS-*F* the scriptures are IRRATIONAL! :-]
Too funny!
br.d writes, “*AS-*F* the scriptures are IRRATIONAL! ”
People are irrational; the Scriptures are rational. thus Paul instructs believers, “…do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” and “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
br.d
writes,[regarding Calvinism’s appeals to scripture] “*AS-IF* the scriptures are IRRATIONAL!
rhutchin
People are irrational; the Scriptures are rational. …..
br.d
And interpretations evolve from people – who are irrational.
Like believing it TRUE – that a THEOS determines everything in every part- while going about your office *AS-IF* your belief is FALSE. And then looking for scriptures to affirm that.
Hence Calvinism :-]
GraceAdict writes, ““God saves less than all people” is what most Non-Calvinists believe. ”
The difference being that Calvinism says that God saves people who refuse God’s offer of salvation and CraceAdict refuses to allow God to do that. So, GraceAdict denies salvation to all who refuse salvation. How cruel is that!!
rhutchin
We have GraceAdict who says, “God saves all people,”
br.d
How boring this strawman is!
Why you keep using it – must be Calvin’s god DECREED it as your current specific desire :-]
rhutchin
Dr. William Lane Craig means that the Molinist does not have to prove his presuppositions. That’s fine, but it does mean that the logical structure of Molinism depends on those presuppositions and anyone proving any one of those presuppositions false proves Molinism false.
br.d
Well then – reach out to Dr. Craig and present your case – I’m sure Dr. Craig’s presuppositions will collapse immediately! :-]
rhutchin
Then, br.d says, “Molinism provides just as good or better an account of divine providence than Calvinism does. Hence your dilemma is false.” This is wrong as Molinism doesn’t say anything that contradicts Calvinism. Molinism deals with pre-creation events; Calvinism deals with post creation events.
br.d
So now we have different presuppositions on Molinism – which of course are held in one’s mind without question.
So again – take your case to Dr. Craig
I’m sure both he and Dr. Plantinga will concede to your superior logic immediately (wink-wink). :-]
This is what I experienced, and on of the reasons I was pretty angry when I first arrived at Sot101. I felt that my Calvi-pastor, whom I had trusted, loved and worked alongside for over a decade had completely misled me, preaching with words that had one meaning to nearly all of the unschooled in Calvinism in the pews, and another meaning to one who genuinely understands the demands of the theology.
So an entire decade of my life was stolen, and my children were raised under this hideous theology masked under pleasant sounding euphemisms. They not only steal God’s genuine magnificent, loving character – they steal years from those they deceive. And they steal the joy, peace, hope and beauty in life that comes from knowing who God truly is.
Incredibly enough – I can totally see that happening TS00!
My first personal experience with Calvinism was with a pastor who was hiding the fact he was teaching it to his congregation.
Fortunately for me – I was able to immediately recognize indicators of flesh – that alerted me something was wrong with this guy.
Eventually I was invited to a home bible study with his group one night and I happened to quote A.W. Tozer
Apparently that quote stuck in his craw and he referred me to John Calvin as the man with the only correct bible interpretation.
That was all I needed to know
From that point on I could see through all of his subtle tactics – and everything made sense.
John Calvin was his super-apostle
My denomination was Calvinist, but the pastor knew that we, and most everyone else, were not on board with Calvinism. He convinced us, a la compatibilism, that we could have our cake and eat it too. He never openly taught consistent Calvinism for the first 12 years, or consented to have a class on TULIP. It was only at the end that we began to get a taste of real Calvinism from the pulpit. Many, nay, most, left. The church survives by spiraling members in and out – few stay.
That doesn’t surprise me.
This Calvinist pastor got his tiny little congregation by culling them out of a church.
The minister for this congregation retired
And he started campaigning to take that pastors place by trying to convince people they were being taught a false interpretation of scripture. But since he didn’t tell them he never really told them it was Calvinism – my guess is he knew they would never have followed him out of that church had they known. Watching them reminded me of a mother duck with a bunch of little ducklings following along in single file – carrying their black-leather bound bibles. It was really a laughable site to see – if one doesn’t feel sorry for those poor naive Christians who didn’t know better than to follow him.
br.d writes, ‘We understand that “NOT PERMIT” and “NOT DECREE” logically equate with each other.”
No, they don’t. If God does not permit, then He overrides the desires of the person so that the person is unable to falsify or negate the divine decree. If God does not decree, then He does not override the desires of the person to voluntarily and willfully choose the divine decree.
br.d
We understand that “NOT PERMIT” and “NOT DECREE” logically equate with each other.”
rhutchin
No, they don’t….
br.d
Actually IN LOGIC they do – and you stated it here:
-quote
All events [E or ~E] come to pass at time [T] as a manifestation of God’s divine decree
Your way of writing [NOT E] is [~E]
So for you [NOT E] is a manifestation of the divine decree.
Which is logically TRUE
Now anyone with a basic knowledge in LOGIC knows – that Calvin’s god decreeing [E] NOT come to pass – is the Logical Equivalent to Calvin’s god NOT PERMITTING [E] come to pass.
rhutchin
If God does not permit, then He overrides the desires of the person so that the person is unable to falsify or negate the divine decree.
br.d
AH! But in Calvinism we must always remember – what the LARGE PRINT giveth – the FINE PRINT taketh away!
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a creature having a desire come to pass that was not FIRST-CONCEIVED and then RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world – as a part of Calvin’s god creating every aspect and attribute of that creature.
Therefore if Calvin’s god “overrides” a creature’s desire – he is in fact “overriding” a desire he himself determined in the first place.
rhutchin
If God does not decree, then He does not override the desires of the person to voluntarily and willfully choose the divine decree.
br.d
Now this is a great example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
In this case *AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t determine every part of every voluntary willful choice the creature will have.
And *AS-IF* Calvin’s god would otherwise “merely” PERMIT the creature to have a desire which Calvin’s god did not himself determine the creature to infallibly have.
As I’ve often said – I don’t have to provide explanations of things you claim to not understand
I simply sit back and let you give them.
You do a much better job at providing them all by yourself! :-]
br.d writes, “Now anyone with a basic knowledge in LOGIC knows – that Calvin’s god decreeing [E] NOT come to pass – is the Logical Equivalent to Calvin’s god NOT PERMITTING [E] come to pass.”
For those who might might this confusing, let’s put it this way, All events [E or ~E] are a manifestation of God’s divine decree – this means God decrees to permit and not permit ant event. br.d says no more than this when he says, “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a creature having a desire come to pass that was not FIRST-CONCEIVED and then RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world – as a part of Calvin’s god creating every aspect and attribute of that creature.” Everything, including the desires of people are events in logic and are decreed (ordained) by God. This stated by Paul in Ephesians where he writes, ‘…God works all things according to the counsel of His will…”
Then, “Therefore if Calvin’s god “overrides” a creature’s desire – he is in fact “overriding” a desire he himself determined in the first place.”
God created people with the ability to have desires and to desire X. God can override any desire (any event) and that by His decree.
Then, “And *AS-IF* Calvin’s god would otherwise “merely” PERMIT the creature to have a desire which Calvin’s god did not himself determine the creature to infallibly have. ”
Here we see the effect of God’s infinite understanding. God created people with the abilityhave desires and to desire X. By His infinite understanding, God knows all the desires a person can have in the course of his life. God can choose (decree) that a person’s desires proceed unhindered by Him (God permits the desire) or God can choose to change that desire (God does not permit the desire). None of God’s decisions (decrees) are passive, but all are active choices God makes according tot he counsel of His will.
br.d
Now anyone with a basic knowledge in LOGIC knows – that Calvin’s god decreeing [E] NOT come to pass – is the Logical Equivalent to Calvin’s god NOT PERMITTING [E] come to pass.”
rhutchin
For those who might might this confusing, let’s put it this way, All events [E or ~E] are a manifestation of God’s divine decree – this means God decrees to permit and not permit ant event.
br.d
Here you say you want to make things less confusing and you make it confusing:
“decree to permit and not permit an event” is a LOGICAL impossibility.
We can simplify it:
If Calvin’s god’s SECRET will for an event is it be TRUE – then his DECREE is required and the DECREE makes it TRUE
If Calvin’s god does not DECREE it TRUE – then his SECRET will was for it to be FALSE
Its just that simple.
rhutchin
God created people with the ability to have desires and to desire X. God can override any desire (any event) and that by His decree.
br.d
No specific desire will have existence without Calvin’s god DECREEING that that specific desire will have existence.
Without the DECREE there is no desire to “override”.
Now if after that he want’s to “override” that desire – that is his prerogative
But in such case he would be DECREEING a desire to have existence – and then DECREEING an “overriding” one in lieu of that desire.
rhutchin
Here we see the effect of God’s infinite understanding…..etc
br.d
Even “infinite understanding” cannot make square-circles, married-bachelors, and FALSE-TRUTH
Either NO desire will have existence without Calvin’s god specifically DECREEING it or not.
Its just that simple!
But I know – the Calvinist want’s Calvin’s god to determine every part of everything *AS-IF* he doesn’t
And we also understand why the Calvinist relies on *AS-IF* thinking.
To bad that’s just not LOGICALLY possible. :-]
br.d writes, “Here you say you want to make things less confusing and you make it confusing: “decree to permit and not permit an event” is a LOGICAL impossibility.”
Let’s take an example from Scripture. “Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also…Then, as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers about what had become of Peter. But when Herod had searched for him and not found him, he examined the guards and commanded that they should be put to death.” We see that God permitted Herod to put James to death, and then did not permit Herod to put Peter to death.
We can simplify it:
If God’s SECRET will is for James to be put to death is TRUE – then his DECREE is required and the DECREE makes it TRUE
If God’s SECRET will is not for Peter to be put to death is TRUE – then his DECREE is required and the DECREE makes it TRUE
Then, “No specific desire will have existence without Calvin’s god DECREEING that that specific desire will have existence.”
By Ephesians 1, we know that “God works or decrees) all things according to the counsel of His will.” As God’s counsel forms the basis for God’s decree, it precedes the decree. By counsel of His will, we understand that God has an infinite understanding of all things including the desires of people, so that the desires of people have existence in God’s understanding. On this understanding, God then decrees to permit or not permit the person’s desire.
br.d
Here you say you want to make things less confusing and you make it confusing: “decree to permit and not permit an event” is a LOGICAL impossibility.”
rhutchin
Let’s take an example from Scripture.
br.d
Don’t need one.
The LOGIC is EASY to understand – FOR someone who is willing to connect the dots – rather than evade them.
But I already know your interest is in evading them.
So I’ll let SOT101 readers review the LOGIC of what I’ve posted and make up their own minds.
MORE LOGIC ON CALVIN’S GOD NOT PERMITTING HIS ENUNCIATED WILL
If it is TRUE that a Calvinist will commit a hideous sin at 6PM – then it was Calvin’s god’s SECRET will that it be TRUE
And for it to be TRUE requires Calvin’s god’s *specific* DECREE that it be TRUE.
Now the ENUCIATED will concerning that hideous sin is that it be FALSE
So here is what we have so far:
1) Calvin’s god DECREED a Calvinist’s hideous sin be TRUE (manifesting his SECRET will)
2) Calvin’s god did NOT DECREE that Calvinist’s hideous sin be FALSE (where FALSE = his ENUCIATED will).
Now concerning permission:
Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate his SECRET will.
Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate his DECREE.
In such case it LOGICALLY follows by caveat:
Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT the Calvinist to obey his ENUNCIATED will.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT that Calvinist to obey his ENUCIATED will.”
This predicated on God’s infinite understanding and foreknowledge that the person would not desire to obey His enunciated will and God’s decision not to intervene to obtain a different outcome. By example, God understood perfectly that Cain wanted to kill Abel and even watched as the murder unfolded before His eyes. Yet God had decided that Cain be free to follow his desire to murder Abel. As br.d has observed, God had rendered certain the murder of Abel.
br.d
Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT that Calvinist to obey his ENUCIATED will.”
rhutchin
This predicated on God’s infinite understanding and foreknowledge that the person would not desire to obey His enunciated will
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” permits the creature to have any specific desire :-]
*AS-IF* an attribute of a secondary caused an attribute of a secondary – caused an attribute of a secondary
And on into infinite regress.
Poor Calvinists have to find a way of evading – following their systems CAUSE- EFFECT chain back to its ORIGIN. :-]
The ORIGIN of every creaturely attribute (e.g. desire) – is the DECREE.
There’s no escape from that.
rh writes:
“This predicated on God’s infinite understanding and foreknowledge that the person would not desire to obey His enunciated will.”
It is impossible to not see how contradictory this is to Calvinistic determinism. In Calvinism, nothing is predicated on God’s understanding and foreknowledge; all is determined, not foreseen and responded to. This is simply blowing smoke in order to keep the wary questioner from seeing through to the reality of the system. And perhaps to convince themselves, cause who would want to live with the false, meaningless reality that Calvinism creates?
Hence, they fabricate a layer of artificial cause-effect that substitutes for genuine, meaningful living. Real reason is replaced with supernatural magic. Transformative faith is replaced with an outwardly supplied, unsought transfusion. Genuine, free choice is replaced with ‘an offer you can’t refuse’. No one is fooled, unless they truly wish to be.
It brings to mind another ‘election’ that passes for free choice. Does anyone truly believe that just anyone can become president of the U.S., or are not all aware that the process is carefully controlled to allow only the carefully vetted, groomed and controlled tools to take the reins of so-called global power? Ah, but we are so easily appeased by the appearance of choice.
TS00
No one is fooled, unless they truly wish to be.
br.d
Spot on TS00!!
And it becomes clear that is where the poor Calvinist is forced to live.
In his little magical world – designed to ensure everything is just the way *HE* wants it to be.
The irony of Calvinism is – the THEOS is not actually the sovereign one – the Calvinist is!
That old joke about Calvinism says it all:
God decided to make man in his image – and John Calvin decided to return the favor
Calvinists today are simply the spiritual children of their spiritual father. :-]
“Calvinists today are simply the spiritual children of their spiritual father.”
Anyone who does their homework would be horrified at the history of this ‘spiritual father’. There is plenty of academic research to discount the myths that he was just a well-meaning guy living in a bloody era. He was a double-talking, lying, scheming, torture-happy madman who would abuse or kill anyone who dared to disagree with him. But, hey, if that’s your cup of tea . . .
Makes me think of all of the mega-church pastors living in their multi-million dollar mansions off the backs of their admiring fans, who appear to take them at their Sunday morning face value. ‘Cause they put on a really good show, with their professional bands and smoke machines. But, hey, if that’s your cup of tea . . .
TS00 writes, “In Calvinism, nothing is predicated on God’s understanding and foreknowledge; all is determined, not foreseen and responded to.”
Calvinists start with Ephesians 1:11, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will. ” God works (or ordains or determines) all things according to the counsel of His will – a counsel made possible by God’s infinite understanding prior to having ordained/determined anything specific. Based on that counsel (and that understanding) God works (or ordains or determines) all things. That which God ordains then becomes His knowledge. So, That which God knows is predicated on that which God ordains which is predicated on God’s counsel and infinite understanding.
If you think that is wrong, or replacing real reason with supernatural magic, let’s see your explanation of Ephesians 1:11.
rhutchin
Calvinists start with Ephesians 1:11,
br.d
Actually Calvinists start with UNIVERSAL Divine Causal Determinism.
They simply look for verses in the data of scripture to affirm it.
As William Lane Craig notes:
-quote
It needs to be kept in mind that universal, divine causal determinism is an *INTERPRETATION* of Scripture, an interpretation that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.
The fun part is watching the LOVE-HATE relationship Calvinists have with their own doctrine. :-]
br.d writes, “Actually Calvinists start with UNIVERSAL Divine Causal Determinism.
They simply look for verses in the data of scripture to affirm it.”
Why do you make this up???
br.d
Actually Calvinists start with UNIVERSAL Divine Causal Determinism.
They simply look for verses in the data of scripture to affirm it.”
rhutchin
Why do you make this up???
br.d
Again with the reverse attribution! :-]
br.d writes, “The ORIGIN of every creaturely attribute (e.g. desire) – is the DECREE.
There’s no escape from that.”
Yes, all are born with a corrupted nature inherited from Adam. This, God decreed.
br.d
The ORIGIN of every creaturely attribute (e.g. desire) – is the DECREE.
There’s no escape from that.”
rhutchin
Yes, all are born with a corrupted nature inherited from Adam. This, God decreed.
br.d
DUH!
Being “born” is an attribute – and the creature’s “nature” is an attribute.
As such they fall under “every creaturely attribute” the ORIGIN of which is the DECREE.
But we know – the Calvinist wants to say: The attribute caused the attribute caused the attribute – and on into infinite regress.
Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern is all part of their LOVE-HATE relationship with their doctrine! :-]
Rhutchin says: Calvinists start with Ephesians 1:11, “… God works (or ordains or determines) all things according to the counsel of His will .. ”
When I looked up “works” in the concordance online, I see that it means “to be active, efficient.” NOT “ordains or determines.” This is adding something that isn’t there. And we all know that when Calvinists say “ordains/determines.” they mean “God preplanned everything and causes everything that happens.”
Calvinists cling to “ordains/determines” with everything they’ve got, and they insert it anywhere and everywhere in order to “support” their erroneous view of “sovereignty.” (Calvinism: Mankind telling God how a “sovereign” God must act in order to be God.)
To me, Ephesians 1:11 is saying that God can work everything into His plans, even the things He doesn’t actively cause, the things He simply allows us to do. God is big enough and wise enough to take all things – things He causes, things we cause (through our own choices, not because He caused us to do it!), things Satan causes – and work it into His plans or work something good out of it. I think Eph 1:11 is saying that He is active in working all things into His plans, that He efficiently uses whatever happens (even things He doesn’t cause) to get His Will accomplished. Such as God didn’t cause Pharaoh to harden his heart (but He did make Pharaoh’s decision permanent after Pharaoh chose to harden his own heart first), but He worked Pharaoh’s hardheartedness into His plans.
(Calvinists seem to think that “God works all things that happen into His Will” is the same as “God wills all things that happen.” And that “God has plans He carries out” is the same thing as “Everything that happens is because God planned it.” And so I guess that since all monkeys are animals, then all animals must be monkeys, right?)
Romans 8:28 is along the lines of Eph 1:11 too. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him.” It’s not saying God causes all things, but that He causes all things to work for good.
If, as Calvinists say, God preplans/causes all things that happen, then why would we have verses like Psalm 33:10: “The Lord foils the plans of the nations …” If God ordained that they make the plans they do, then the nation’s plans are HIS plans. Isn’t He then foiling His own plans? (This is just one verse of many.)
In Calvinism, “God preplans/causes everything” goes by many names and is slipped into many biblical concepts: ordains, determines, foreknowledge, omniscience, sovereignty, election, predestination, works, etc.
My Calvi-pastor (ex-pastor) would use biblical words like “ordains” while hiding the fact that he really meant “God preplans/causes everything.” And so for a long while, we didn’t realize he was a dogmatic Calvinist pushing dogmatic Calvinism, because he disguised what he really believed behind biblical words. He would be careful not to use the word “cause,” but he would say things like “God has ordained your eternity” and “God has ordained everything that happens in your life (even childhood abuse).” Some people might assume he meant that God knew it would happen and allowed it to happen (and I’m sure he wanted them to assume this, so that he could slip further in without setting off any warning bells). But what he really meant was that God preplanned it all and caused it all to happen exactly the way it did. (Of course, it’s clear to me now what he means, but at first I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.) Many Calvinists hide “preplanned/cause” behind a number of other things.
Calvinism: Hijacking biblical truths, words, and verses, and slipping in hidden secondary meanings for it all, completely altering God’s character and the Truth of Scripture.
Great comments Heather!
Do you also observe the EQUIVOCAL nature of Calvinist language?
They will use EXPLICIT language to assert “ordains/determines” in one statement.
And assert the opposite using INFERENTIAL language
I call this the Calvinist two-step :-]
Heather writes:
“Romans 8:28 is along the lines of Eph 1:11 too. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him.” It’s not saying God causes all things, but that He causes all things to work for good.”
This one always astounds me. Seriously, how could anyone with even the slightest understanding of the English language turn ‘God works all things together for good’ into ‘God causes all things, so even evil is good’? Nor does such a rendition even make any sense. If God causes all things, there would be nothing for him to ‘work together’ for good. All would be good from the start.
Heather writes:
“And so for a long while, we didn’t realize he was a dogmatic Calvinist pushing dogmatic Calvinism, because he disguised what he really believed behind biblical words.”
Exactly what my Calvi-pastor did. He would affirm what a scripture actually said, while, unbeknownst to his unsuspecting listeners, his definitions of the words were entirely different than what ours were – and he knew it. He would deliberately quote old, traditional, favorite hymns which he knew we all had grown up on (and which he privately despised) and get everyone nodding their heads, all the while leaving himself the semantic room to mean something completely different from what most supposed. Once I caught on to this, I could see how he taught his Calvinism to us subtly, using formats and symbols that were familiar and beloved while gradually shifting their meaning without anyone realizing what was taking place. I would come home having heard an entirely different message than my unsuspecting spouse.
Heather writes:
“Calvinism: Hijacking biblical truths, words, and verses, and slipping in hidden secondary meanings for it all, completely altering God’s character and the Truth of Scripture.”
That is about as accurate and concise a definition of how Calvinism works as I have ever seen.
Excellent TSOO and Heather:
“Calvinism: Hijacking biblical truths, words, and verses, and slipping in hidden secondary meanings for it all, completely altering God’s character and the Truth of Scripture.”
A friend of mine started going to a new church..they have noticed the Calvinist bent but it seems a bit more moderate. They recently talked with some elders to see if they would become members. My friends raised the issue that they believed God really does love all people and genuinely offers salvation to all…One of the elders said “I used to believe like you but after more study I have come to see…(Calvinism)”. The elder also said: “The more you study the Bible the more you are going to find things that don’t make sense or seem to contradict each other.”.
How interesting that this is so true when you embrace a Calvinist systematic, BUT when you reject the Gnostic paradigm things actually make more and more sense and your trust in God’s clear revelation becomes greater and greater.
LARGE PRINT small print:
Notice how the Calvinist will wave the banners of mainline Christianity that is the Large Print…while they teach things that contradict the very banner that they are waving.
Example: A. BANNER WAVING: CALVINISM BELIEVES THAT GOD IS A GOD OF GENUINE LOVE,
B. Actual Teaching: Most people God created for the express purpose of Reprobation, He irresistibly created them for damnation, hell and God’s wrath; at no point in all of eternity did God Genuinely love them But His Glory requires this. SO Who are you to question God?.
Their TEACHING actually denies what their BANNER proclaims.
They do this with God’s:
LOVE
HOLINESS
TRUTH
NO PARTIALITY
GOD’S WILL
GRACE
The list goes on and on…they use a “BANNER” that is well accepted and Biblical but the actual “teaching” denies the BANNER.
This is how they survive…and yet they are systematically retelling the whole story of the Bible to mean something very different from the BANNER that is used to draw people in.
As J.Wells says: “The debate regarding Calvinism is NOT a debate about a few proof texts that Calvinists use it is a debate about how you read the ENTIRE narrative of Scripture. How you read the entire story of scripture.”
GraceAdict
The elder also said: “The more you study the Bible the more you are going to find things that don’t make sense or seem to contradict each other.”.
br.d
The elder is divulging a little to much of the WHOLE TRUTH than Calvinists normally allow themselves to reveal.
Give this elder a few more years and he will learn to couch his statements in FULL BLOWN CALVINIST DOUBLE-SPEAK
That’s the only way they can play the game and make points.
For them its not how you play the game – its all about winning.
GraceAdict writes:
“The elder also said: “The more you study the Bible the more you are going to find things that don’t make sense or seem to contradict each other.””
This is so telling though. This is one of the tools by which Calvinists manipulate and control people. They convince them that scripture is too difficult for them to understand, and they simply need to trust the authority of the councils/creeds/pastors to explain what seems inconsistent. If they don’t have the answer, one must simply chalk it up to ‘mystery’. It couldn’t possibly be that they have created the inconsistencies with their misinterpretations.
I think this is an aspect of Calvinism that they did not COME OUT OF when leaving Catholicism.
If they can’t burn you to the stake for reading scripture – the next best thing is telling you it doesn’t mean what it says.
Calvinist Elder: “The more you study the Bible the more you are going to find things that don’t make sense or seem to contradict each other.”
BUT this IS totally true for Calvinism, the reason is, in one hand they hold TULIPS plus a few other things that they WILL NOT let go of, in the other hand they hold the Bible. They want to be true to the Bible but their systematic contradicts the Bible BUT they feel they cannot let go of their systematic. (The S in TULIPS stands for Sovereign=Determinism)
TULIPS is not Biblical so that is why they have this constant struggle with “things that do not make sense or contradict the Bible” the problem of Contradiction goes away as soon as you let go of TULIPS.
Though James is talking about praying, the principle of double mindedness is the same for doctrine.
Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Back and forth between TULIPS and the Bible each one contradicting the other but not willing to let go of either = unstable, then one must cover up these contradictions with “mystery” and a false claim to humility.
Calvinism is a constant attack on the Moral Character of God. It twists the word to make it fit with Calvinism but then scripture is so clear that these contradictions just can’t be consistently hid anymore…that is where they appeal to “mystery” “paradox” “tension” and then say I am humble enough to admit my small brain can’t figure out the infinite one, you too must be humble like me and Glorify God by simply agreeing with Calvin as I have.
They use these tactics to hide their error and still sound pious and humble. NOW most of them don’t realize fully what they are doing but they do it none the less.
BUT there is nothing humble about distorting God’s Glorious Character.
Once again, very astute observations, GA. I agree with you that so many converted to Calvinism ‘do not know what they do’. It truly aches my heart as, for me, this includes many dear and loved people who I sincerely believe mean well. They have been seduced into the trap by all of the subtle, well-practiced Calvinist tricks, and it is difficult to be awakened when the mantra is ‘Who are you to question?’ and ‘We humbly submit to the Word of God’. A dear friend suggests that it nearly always takes extreme circumstances to wake such people up.
So true, GA! And if you study how brainwashing and mind control works, this is pretty much what takes place at such churches. Long before I understood any of this, I knew in my spirit that something was wrong, and as I hemmed and hawed, the long night came when I felt God essentially challenging me to fish or cut bait. I was frightened at the thought of all I might lose – but I was more frightened at the sense I felt of my soul slowly deadening to the guiding presence of God which had always been my anchor.
It truly felt like the devil’s bargain to me: I could buy into the no need to worry about my sin ‘assurance’ of Calvinism or I could revive my flagging relationship with the living God, trusting him to help free me from the power of sin. I made the decision then and there that the one thing I could not give up was God. I have never regretted it.
heather writes, “To me, Ephesians 1:11 is saying that God can work everything into His plans, even the things He doesn’t actively cause, the things He simply allows us to do. … Eph 1:11 is saying that He is active in working all things into His plans, that He efficiently uses whatever happens (even things He doesn’t cause) to get His Will accomplished. ”
Do you mean that God does not know beforehand what will happen and has to wait until He observes an event before He can work it into His plan? If so, then that is a key difference you have with Calvinism.
Looks like rh forgot the non-Calvinist view of foreknowledge. Again. Lol
TS00 writes, ‘Looks like rh forgot the non-Calvinist view of foreknowledge.”
Sounds like Heather has an alternative view.
He didn’t forget – he’s just playing tricks again! :-]
heather
“To me, Ephesians 1:11 is saying that God can work everything into His plans, even the things He doesn’t actively cause, the things He simply allows us to do. … Eph 1:11 is saying that He is active in working all things into His plans, that He efficiently uses whatever happens (even things He doesn’t cause) to get His Will accomplished. ”
rhutchin
Do you mean that God does not know beforehand what will happen and has to wait until He observes an event before He can work it into His plan? If so, then that is a key difference you have with Calvinism.
br,d
No – She’s simply saying he knows but does not CAUSE.
You and I both know he knows what ‘God knows’ means. 😉
Yup! :-]
rhutchin is always a game player
br.d writes, ‘She’s simply saying he knows but does not CAUSE.”
When Heather writes, “God can work…He efficiently uses whatever happens…” it suggests a different view to me. We should let Heather speak for herself.
rhutchin
When Heather writes, “God can work…He efficiently uses whatever happens…” it suggests a different view to me. We should let Heather speak for herself.
br.d
You already know what Heather means – you’re just playing tricks
If you peruse Heather’s blog I think you will see that she is more than capable of dealing with both the doctrine and doublespeak of Calvinism. 😉 https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/
Rhutchin, I agree with BR.D. that you know full well what my answer would be but that you are just playing games. So how about I ask you a question instead …
If God’s foreknowledge means He causes the things He foreknows will happen, then how could there be something He foreknew could have happened but didn’t?
1 Samuel 23:12-13: Again David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will.” So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place.”
1 Samuel 3:13: “You have done a foolish thing,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time.”
In Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus says that if Jesus’s miracles had been in Tyre and Sodom then they would have repented.
If Calvi-god foreknows something then it has to happen because he causes what he foreknows and what he foreknows he causes. And so everything that happens is because Calvi-god foreknew it would happen and caused it to happen. And nothing else can happen but what Calvi-god foreknew and caused. So then is God lying when He says there were events He foreknew would have happened if different choices were made? If Calvi-god foreknew those things that would have happened then they should have happened, if foreknowledge means “preplanned and caused by Calvi-god.”
Additionally, how can God cause something He never “foreknew” (according to Calvinism’s view of foreknowledge)?
Jeremiah 19:5: “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”
And how could things happen that He didn’t consent to or approve of?
Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.”
“Causing” and “foreknowledge” are not synonymous, as Calvinists believe. And you ere in assuming that denying one is denying the other.
(I’m going to guess your reply will simply be “Look, she’s evading the question,” as if that “proves” you were right.)
Answering questions like these is where the Calvinist learns to point 10 fingers in 20 directions at the same time :-]
heather writes, “you know full well what my answer would be but that you are just playing games.’
No games. God has an infinite understanding of His creation, so necessarily, God has a perfect knowledge of all future events. If God’s knowledge were increasing as He learned of events as they occurred, then His understanding would also increase making that understanding finite. So, we agree that God must have a perfect and complete knowledge of all future events.
Then, “If God’s foreknowledge means He causes the things He foreknows will happen…”
By “cause” we mean that the moment God created the universe, He caused all future events – this because God’s omniscient knowledge of the future made future events certain and God’s infinite understanding of His creation made future events necessary.
All creation reacts to God’s direct involvement in His creation. God opens the gate for Satan to enter the garden having perfect understanding of how first Eve and then Adam will respond to Satan. God destroys the world in a flood having perfect understanding of the reactions of Noah and his sons. God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah; God chooses Abraham, God arranges for Joseph to be sold in slavery, God brings seven years of plenty and famine, God brings the nation of Israel out of Egypt, and on and on we could go.
God understands that Eve will fall to the deception of Satan and that Adam will eat the fruit she offers, that the world will become increasingly evil as will Sodom and Gomorrah, that Joseph’s brothers will be jealous and seek to rid themselves of Joseph, etc. God “causes” all that happens as He had the ability to affect different outcomes before He created the universe but chose the sequence of events that we observe in the past and that are still playing out into the future. Through direct action and the secondary actions of others, God caused Pharaoh to harden his heart, David to sleep with Bathsheba, the Jews to stone Stephen, etc.
Then, ‘…then how could there be something He foreknew could have happened but didn’t?
God has infinite understanding of all things that could have happened prior to His creation of the universe and all things that happen as a consequence of His creating the universe. God’s understanding enables God to incorporate His involvement in that universe. Thus, God can tell David what the city elders would do and still know the actual sequence of events as they would play out. By telling David what would happen, God pushes David into leaving the city.
God adds to His experiential knowledge continually as the incarnation confirms and the meaning of “now I know” (Gen 22:12) logically proves. That is by definition a type of learning.
Very interesting !!! I had never thought of that… definitely worth pondering.
brianwagner writes, “God adds to His experiential knowledge continually…”
The issue being what God experiences that He did not already know through His understanding of those experiences.
Genesis 22 says, “And God said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
This Brian labels “experiential” knowledge. Does that mean that God did not understand Abraham and was ignorant about the choice that Abraham would make given that God was the source of his faith for what does a person have that he has not received among those things being grace, courage, trust, etc. God had already planned for Christ to die on the cross and Issac turns out to be an important link leading to that event. Is there really such a thing as “experiential knowledge” with God? If so, maybe God just experiences the truth of His understanding of His creation.
Thank you Roger for confirming that you see that God adds to His experiential knowledge. We agree that He had/has infinite understanding of all things. We just disagree on the how that understanding functions.
Seeing this truth of changes in God’s experiential knowledge may help open minds see how God’s factual knowledge “changes” as experiences are added… especially if they can fathom that equally valid possibilities do exist before God then makes a choice between them.
But they must first come to believe “choice” is not an anthropomorphism, which it would be if they believe everything is already eternally immutably predestined from before creation to only work out one way
rhutchin
No games….
br.d
Actually we’re all familiar with the games
But no one can stop a person from hiding things from himself. :-]
rhutchin
God has an infinite understanding of His creation…
br,d
Lets watch this phrase “infinite understanding” with an eagle eye and see if there is a subtle strategy behind it.
Looking for indicators of it being used as a way to SMUGGLE In “Knowledge via observation”
As mask to hide “Knowledge of what has been DECREED”.
rhuthcin
By “cause” we mean….
God’s infinite understanding of His creation made future events necessary.
br.d
In theological Determinism CAUSE is a referent to CAUSE AND EFFECT.
Every aspect of the creature is a DIRECT EFFECT of what Calvin’s god CAUSES
The creature’s DESIGN, ATTRIBUTES, THOUGHTS, CHOICES, etc.
Thus the creatures every neurological impulse have their ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s MIND – and Calvin’s god WILLS each and very neurological impulse to occur within the creatures brain at a specified time.
As Calvin states it:
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires. – (A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190_
and
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, …..can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan…unless in so far as He COMMANDS;….they are FORCED to do Him service.” Institutes I, 17, 11.
rhuthcin
All creation reacts to God’s direct involvement in His creation.
br.d
Let’s watch this statement with an eagle eye.
It may be simply another attempt to SMUGGLE in creaturely AUTONOMY – which doesn’t exist in Calvinism.
If Calvin’s god doesn’t CAUSE the creature to turn left – or turn right – etc – the creature doesn’t have movement.
rhuthcin
God understands that Eve will fall to the deception of Satan
br.d
AH! Here it is!
Here we have INFERENCE of “Knowledge via observation” being SMUGGLED IN – used as a mask to hide the Determinism.
What Calvin’s god understands – is he did NOT PERMIT Satan, Eve, and Adam to do otherwise than what he DECREED they do
rhuthcin
God has infinite understanding of all things
br.d
So now we know this phrase “infinite understanding of” is just another way of SMUGGLING in “Knowledge via Observation”.
It always resolves to some form of DOUBLE-SPEAK
Understanding Calvinism is simple:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask if IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points.
rhutchin
God’s infinite understanding of His creation made future events necessary.
br.d
I neglected to hit this one:
Any appeal to events occurring of “necessity” is an appeal to Fatalism – in this case Theological Fatalism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Fatalism is the thesis that human acts occur by NECESSITY.
br.d writes, “Any appeal to events occurring of “necessity” is an appeal to Fatalism – in this case Theological Fatalism”
Only br.d would refer to God’s actions as fatalistic and support his position with human understanding..
rhutchin
Only br.d would refer to God’s actions as fatalistic and support his position with human understanding..
br.d
If I cast out fallacies by logic – which is universally upheld within Christian Philosophy – by what do you cast them out?
Answer: You don’t :-]
Rhutchin’s latest ploy, replacing ‘determinism’ with ‘understanding’ is painfully obvious. How can this ‘understanding’ possibly differ from ‘foreknowledge’, other than in spelling? Even the most unlearned student of Calvinism knows that the system rejects God’s determinations being predicated upon foreknowledge. Rather, Calvinism insists that his foreknowledge is due to his eternal, deteminative decrees.
It is non-Calvinists who assert that God’s actions and reactions are based upon his foreknowledge, rather than a meticulous, all-controlling determinism of whatsoever comes to pass. Rhutchin is attempting to proclaim non-Calvinism by euphemising foreknowledge with understanding. Ah, the wily ways of the desperate Calvinist, forced to try and make his hideous, unworkable system appear to make sense.
From Kevin…Beyond Fundamentals, he makes a very insightful observation that many of us have made, But I do like how he worded it, he said that Calvinism with it’s insistence on Determinism is actually saying that they believe that in the “Domain of Libertarian Free Will” it is impossible for God to be Sovereign. They are saying that God is incapable of being Sovereign over His creation if they have Free-Will. So they are diminishing God’s ability, power, and wisdom if for Sovereignty to exist it requires Determinism…..This diminishes God instead of exalting God.
Great point!
I believe A.W. Tozer made a statement that confirms this.
-quote
A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom (i.e. Libertarian Freedom) upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
Dr. Alvin Plantinga (paraphrased)
SIGNIFICANT freedom is freedom to choose between multiple options which exist as real and available for the creature to choose between. In order for creatures to be SIGNIFICANTLY free therefore God must set both life and death before them. He must make both good and evil equally available to the creature to choose between. If instead he makes that choice for them – then by doing so he eliminates one of the options, making it unavailable for the creature to choose. The creature may be left with the ILLUSION of having a choice between good and evil, but a choice that is an ILLUSION doesn’t actually exist. The creature’s choice in that case would not be a SIGNIFICANT choice. And the creature would therefore not have SIGNIFICANT freedom.
And William Lane Craig puts it this way
-quote
The whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself. Far from glorifying God, the deterministic view, I’m convinced, denigrates God for engaging in a such a farcical charade. It is deeply insulting to God to think that He would create beings which are in every respect causally determined by Him and then treat them *AS-IF* they were free agents, punishing them for the wrong actions He made them do or loving them *AS-IF* they were freely responding agents.
Great quotes!
Exactly right on TS00!
For me this is another example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
In this case I took careful note of what RH was indicating the “infinite understanding” was of
The ATTRIBUTES of the creature.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god isn’t the SOLE EXCLUSIVE DETERMINER of every part of every ATTRIBUTE of the creature.
I noticed he introduced the phrase “infinite understanding” without clearly stating “of what”.
That was a dead giveaway.
So you are right on the bulls-eye to see this as a strategy to hide “determinism” by putting a mask over it – masquerading it as “understanding”.
Calvinists look at Christians who reject Theological Determinism and call them “Polinesians” “semi-heretics” etc
And then those same Calvinists spend 99% of their time trying to hide and masquerade that very determinism.
Applying masks over it – of the very things they call “semi-heretical”
Drunk with religious pride – and thus to inebriated to discern hypocrisy.
br.d writes, “If I cast out fallacies by logic – which is universally upheld within Christian Philosophy – by what do you cast them out?”
By the logic of the Scriptures.
br.d
If I cast out fallacies by logic – which is universally upheld within Christian Philosophy – by what do you cast them out?”
rhutchin
By the logic of the Scriptures.
br.d
Wooow! And you say I make claims!
That would require not contorting scriptures into an in ILLOGICAL pretzel – with Augustine’s Gnostic “Good-Evil” THEOS.
And I’m afraid escaping that is out of the reach of a dedicated Calvinist. :-]
br.d writes, “That would require not contorting scriptures into an in ILLOGICAL pretzel – with Augustine’s Gnostic “Good-Evil” THEOS.”
A bold claim. Let’s see you back it up by explaining the Scriptures you claim are contorted.
br.d
That would require not contorting scriptures into an in ILLOGICAL pretzel – with Augustine’s Gnostic “Good-Evil” THEOS.”
rhutchin
A bold claim. Let’s see you back it up by explaining the Scriptures you claim are contorted.
br.d
That is always super easy.
I simply watch the contortion process in Calvinist posts – and provide the LOGICAL analysis. :-]
Its a win-win for SOT101 readers!
And at the same time we can watch to see the totally unusual circumstance of a Calvinist actually casting out a fallacy rather tripping over one after another of them! :-]
rgutchin: A bold claim. Let’s see you back it up by explaining the Scriptures you claim are contorted.
br.d: That is always super easy. I simply watch the contortion process in Calvinist posts – and provide the LOGICAL analysis.”
In other words, you have nothing.
br.d
That is always super easy. I simply watch the contortion process in Calvinist posts – and provide the LOGICAL analysis.”
rhutchin
In other words, you have nothing.
br.d
Done it a thousand times with your posts I’m afraid.
All the SOT101 reader need do is review our threads.
But I understand why a Calvinist could not allow himself to acknowledge that. :-]
br.d writes, “Every aspect of the creature is a DIRECT EFFECT of what Calvin’s god CAUSES
The creature’s DESIGN, ATTRIBUTES, THOUGHTS, CHOICES, etc.”
As a consequence of Adam’s sin, God decreed that all born to Adam would have a corrupt nature and no faith. The effect of the corrupt nature and no faith would be – “The creature’s DESIGN, ATTRIBUTES, THOUGHTS, CHOICES, etc.”
Then, ‘Thus the creatures every neurological impulse have their ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s MIND – and Calvin’s god WILLS each and very neurological impulse to occur within the creatures brain at a specified time.”
That origin being in God’s understanding. Each and every neurological impulse generated by the corrupt nature is previously understood by God who does nothing to prevent them. Thus, even the sin of man is according to the counsel of God’s will – and as Calvin said, “inspired by God.”.
Then, “Here we have INFERENCE of “Knowledge via observation” being SMUGGLED IN”
Actually, we see that God’s prior knowledge of Eve’s actions is based on His understanding of Eve and confirmed by observation and then recorded for those who would destined to read of them in the future..
Then, ‘So now we know this phrase “infinite understanding of” is just another way of SMUGGLING in “Knowledge via Observation”.”
A bold claim that br.d throws out there without support. Everyone should know that God’s understanding of future events precedes anyone’s observation of those events.
br.d
Every aspect of the creature is a DIRECT EFFECT of what Calvin’s god CAUSES
The creature’s DESIGN, ATTRIBUTES, THOUGHTS, CHOICES, etc.”
rhutchin
As a consequence of Adam’s sin…
br.d
Sorry you’re too far into the CAUSAL chain.
Adam’s sin is an ATTRIBUTE – an EFFECT of the CAUSE – being Calvin’s god.
Outside of the Calvinists world of magical thinking EFFECTS don’t CAUSE themselves.
But we already know your argument – an attribute caused an attribute caused an attribute – and on into infinite regress.
Anything to evade following the CAUSAL chain back to its origin :-]
br.d
Thus the creatures every neurological impulse have their ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s MIND – and Calvin’s god WILLS each and very neurological impulse to occur within the creatures brain at a specified time.”
rhutchin
That origin being in God’s understanding.
br.d
FALSE – this is a confusion in NECESSARY vs SUFFICIENT condition – for a CAUSE.
Understanding can be contributive
But it is not a NECESSARY condition to produce the EFFECT – the DECREE is.
Additionally here we have an INFERENCE of “Knowledge via observation” being SMUGGLED IN”
rhutchin
Actually, we see that God’s prior knowledge of Eve’s actions is based on His understanding of Eve and confirmed by observation and then recorded for those who would destined to read of them in the future.
br.d
Understanding of Eve’s future actions is a CONSEQUENCE of the DECREE because without the DECREE there is no such thing as an action which will come to pass.
The attempt here to SMUGGLE in “Foreknowledge via observation” in camouflaged form is obvious.
So now we know this phrase “infinite understanding of” is just another way of SMUGGLING in “Knowledge via Observation”.”
rhutchin
A bold claim that br.d throws out there without support. Everyone should know that God’s understanding of future events precedes anyone’s observation of those events.
br.d
A silly argument since the DECREES are logically NECESSARY for and therefore must proceed Calvin’s god’s CERTAINTY concerning future events. This is because future events are either CERTAIN or NOT CERTAIN (i.e., theoretical).
The only thing that can make an event CERTAIN is the DECREE.
Thus the DECREE is logically NECESSARY and therefore logically precedes the full understanding of a future event
Sorry rhutchin we’re smart enough to recognize your need to make determinism APPEAR as IN-deterministic as possible.
Sorry but no cigar! :-]
Thanks Br.D and TSOO — Appreciate you picking these things apart line by line. I am learning a lot. Seeing more and more tactics that the Calvinists employ as well as seeing the Truth through your answers. Keep up the good work…it is very helpful
Thank you GraceAdict!
We’re all growing together – learning the new and inventive tricks Calvinists use. :-]
BR.D.: “Answering questions like these is where the Calvinist learns to point 10 fingers in 20 directions at the same time :-]”
Heather: Exactly! And sadly, they seem to think it’s a sign of some sort of superior theological intelligence, as if saying “Look how smart I am to be able to grasp such complex, contradictory ideas!” And when there’s something they really can’t explain away with a half-verse or rambling explanation, it simply gets explained away with “It’s a mystery” and “How dare we question God and His ways!”
My ex-pastor seemed to brag about how he can’t understand how God can be “sovereign” (Calvinist’s version of sovereign) and how man is still held accountable for his actions. He was like “How does that work? How can God be sovereign (controlling all) but still hold us accountable? I don’t know. I can’t explain it. But I accept it in faith because the Bible presents both things as truth.” It was like “Look how humble I am to accept such contradiction without any qualms! And if you are a good, humble Christian, you’ll accept it without a fuss, too.” It’s manipulation!
But we didn’t know enough at the time to challenge his definition of “sovereign.”
But now that I know, I would love to jump up and yell, “Of course you don’t know how it works because you are trying to mesh two completely contradictory ideas that cannot both be true, unless God is a liar and an evil-causing monster. You don’t know how it works because you do not truly understand what ‘sovereign’ means. But I do, and so I know how it all works. ‘Sovereign’ doesn’t mean ‘controlling and causing all that happens,’ which would mean that God first causes our sin and rebellion and then He punishes us for it. What ‘sovereign’ really means is that God is in control over all, that He decides what to cause and what to just allow, that He works it all for good, that He gets the final say over all … but it doesn’t mean He controls our decisions. He could if He wanted to, but He has chosen not to. He’s chosen to give us real choices (not the fake Calvinist kind where we get to ‘choose’ only what God has predetermined we choose, the “You only have ONE door to pick from” kind). And so when we make our choices, He can hold us accountable for them. Because they are OUR choices. That’s how it works. That’s why He is just when He holds us accountable. It’s not hard to understand AT ALL when you view sovereignty correctly, as seen in how God has chosen to exercise His sovereignty in His Word.”
I like to say that listening to a Calvinist try to make their views logical and non-contradictory must be like listening to a severely delusional schizophrenic try to explain why they really are the Queen of England or how they know for sure that they were abducted by aliens. They might truly believe it and it might make perfect “sense” to them, but everyone else can see right through it and wonders how they can be so convinced of their delusions.
(My apologies to schizophrenic people! I mean no offense to them. They can’t necessarily help the condition they’re in. Whereas many Calvinists have essentially willingly and knowingly adopted their “delusions,” despite the fact that it flies in the face of most of the Bible and does great damage to God’s character and Jesus’s sacrifice. And they educate themselves in how to “protect” and “prove” their delusions, clinging to them fiercely and refusing to consider they might be wrong.)
Malcolm Muggeridge said of our western Institutions: “Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility” This can also be said of Christians when they try to hold TULIPS in one hand and the Bible in the other…and study Calvinism long enough that they forcibly make Scriptures agree with the TULIPS… the twisting and deforming of scriptures.
All the education ends up making God a liar…and of course man becomes the fool when he holds TULIPS instead of the pure WORD.
Great quote GraceAdict! and so true!
I’ll have to look up the name “Malcolm Muggeridge” I’ve never heard of him before.
But that statement hits the bulls-eye! :-]
I heard of him through Ravi who quotes GK Chesterton and sometimes M.M. a jornalist the full quote would be:
“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge,
Awesome! I loved it! :-]
Excellent comments!
And I actually appreciated the “schizophrenic people” analogy – I think it really does give one a conception of what its like to try to dialog with a Calvinist. And I do understand for them its a voluntary condition that they fall into gradually – being drawn into it by persuasion – into a patriotism to the guild of the elect ones.
I see from your web-site you have a link to Kevin at “Beyond the fundamentals”. He puts together some really nice videos on how Calvinists auto-magically read their system into scripture. I’ve had a chance to chat with him over email a few times – really great guy!
BR.D., I only just now found Beyond the Fundamentals. My husband has been listening to him a lot these past couple days and loves how he dismantles Calvinism. I am looking forward to hearing more from him as I get the chance.
I too have watched a few of “Beyond the Fundamentals” Great stuff.
Flowers and Kevin should do a video together…That would be awesome!!!!
I agree!
The next time I get a chance I’ll mention it to Dr. Flowers – perhaps he already knows Kevin.
Rhutchin, I can actually agree with you quite a bit, to a point. I can see where you’re coming from. I believe that from the beginning God knew what would happen, that He works events and people’s responses into His plans, that if He has plans He wants to accomplish then He will find a way to get them accomplished, and that what God knows is going to happen is going to happen. I believe that from the beginning, He knows all that will happen and all that could have happened. He knows all the possible responses/actions of men, and how it can all be worked into His plans. (This response is LONG. Sorry for being so long-winded. I’ll try to keep my rambling down to a minimum.)
But I do not agree with Calvinism’s view that just because God accomplishes His plans, it must mean that everything always and only happens because God planned it to happen that way. Or that just because God knows what will happen (so it’s certain to happen), it must mean that God always and only causes it all to happen the way it does.
Actually, let me clarify: When God has plans He wants to carry out, He knows how to work out the details to cause it to happen. God causes everything to work out for good, for His glory, and for His plans. He can and does, at times, corner people into making their decisions, putting them in a position that forces them to make a decision to obey or disobey. But He already knows what they will decide and how He will use their response. But just because He knows how they will respond and how to use their response doesn’t mean He caused them to choose what they did. (This is where one of the big disagreements is between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.)
God may have caused them to make their choice, but He didn’t cause them to pick what they did. They, according to their own desires, chose what they wanted to choose. (And not the fake Calvinist way of “Of course people choose what they desire, but the non-elect will always desire to sin.” This is wrong because it starts with the premise that God decides which nature we get, whether we will be saved or unrepentant, whether we are able to obey or can only always disobey. It says that God causes people to be unelected, to always be unrepentant sinners who can only choose sin. And that is really no choice at all. That is still God causing us to sin, but then punishing us for it.)
The fact that God causes His plans to happen doesn’t mean that He causes us to sin to get His plans to happen. He might cause us to make our choice (to act out the sin that we chose to allow into our hearts), but He doesn’t decide for us if we will obey or disobey. That choice is up to us. He didn’t plan if we would obey or disobey, but He did plan how to use our obedience or disobedience. (I keep saying this in different ways because it’s such a crucial distinction.)
If we obey, He works our obedience into His plans. If we disobey, He works our disobedience into His plans. He can work out His plans whatever we do (and whatever Satan does and whatever nature does, etc.) because of His wisdom and sovereignty and foreknowledge. (Whereas Calvi-god can only manage one factor – himself, the things he causes.) But the choices we make are OURS. We can chose obedience or we can chose disobedience. God doesn’t cause us to pick one or the other. God doesn’t prevent us from being able to obey Him. God doesn’t force anyone to be disobedient. (He can harden hearts when someone has already chosen to be hard-hearted. But He didn’t cause that person to be hard-hearted to begin with. He just made the condition they chose – hard-heartedness – permanent.) And God knew what we would choose from the beginning, and so He knew how to put it to good use.
As a silly example: If God wanted to bake a cake, Calvi-god would pick and choose every ingredient in that cake. He would choose some, leave others out. He would write the directions and then follow them exactly. No alterations. No others factors at work. Only Calvi-god. But the God of the Bible, as I see it, picks and chooses some of the basic ingredients He wants in the cake. But He also lets people bring various other ingredients to the table. And then He, in His wisdom, can look at all the ingredients on the table, even the ones He didn’t pick, and say “I can make something great out of that.” And He does, even though there are ingredients He wouldn’t have necessarily chosen and even if the baking process had some alterations along the way because of what people did or didn’t do. The God of the Bible is big enough to work it all together for good, for an amazing cake. Whereas Calvi-god can only handle what he brings to the table.
God can guide us, through circumstances, to make the decision He wants us to make, but we still have the “final say” in whether we will obey or not. We can choose to rebel against what God wants us to do, or we can choose to obey. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” Well, God can set it all up and guide us to make the right decision, but the final decision is up to us. And we will reap the consequences of our choices.
But whether the horse drinks or not really makes no difference to God because He can work the drinking or the not-drinking into His plans. It doesn’t really affect God’s overall plans. (When the Israelites rebelled in the desert, God simply carried out His plan to get them to the Promised Land with the next generation, the ones who were willing to obey.) But whether we choose obedience or disobedience will greatly affect our lives and our relationship with Him and our eternities. We can either willingly be a part of God’s plans through our obedience, or we will be an unwilling part of His plans through our disobedience. The choice is ours.
But God has to leave the choice to obey or disobey up to us. Because if God forced us to sin, He wouldn’t be the just, holy God that He is in the Bible. (And because it’s the only LOGICAL and RATIONAL way to account for the verses that talk about things happening that God didn’t want, and things not happening that God wanted, and man having a real effect on what happens, and God’s commands to be obedient, etc.)
Justice is punishing people for the things they are truly responsible for. It does not include punishing people for something they had no control over, that God made us do. Because if it did, it wouldn’t be justice anymore.
I look at it like an undercover sting by police. (All illustrations fall short at some point, so humor me here.) The police want to catch the Big Bad Boss. And so they come up with a plan to go undercover to find him, using one of the “little guys” who work for the boss to lead them to him. The cops didn’t make the little guy be a criminal. They didn’t force the little guy to commit crimes or to cooperate with them in the undercover sting. They just let the little guy be the criminal that he chose to be, and the cops used it to their advantage to help them find the boss. And so in the end, the cops can justly arrest the little guy and the boss.
For this illustration, God is the cop, letting us be who we want to be and make the decisions we want to make, and He incorporates it all into His plans. But in Calvinism, the cops wouldn’t be just incorporating the criminal’s actions into their plans; they would be forcing the criminal to be a criminal. They wouldn’t be just letting the criminal make the choice to commit crimes and using it for their plans; they would have created the criminal to be a criminal and have forced him to break the law. And the criminal would have no ability or option to do anything other than be a criminal. He would be forced by the cops to do wrong and be prevented by the cops from doing right.
If a cop forces a person to commit a crime and then arrests that person for what they did, we would say that the cop went bad. That they were not operating within the law anymore and so they would be unjust in arresting the person, because that cop is actually responsible for the crime. But if the cop simply let the criminal willfully make their own sinful decisions, and the cop simply used the criminal’s decisions to get justice done, then the cop can justly arrest the criminal.
I don’t have a problem saying God causes His plans to work out or that He causes all things to work together for good. I have a problem when Calvinism says that God causes people to sin in order to work His plans out, that God makes our choices for us about if we will be obedient or disobedient, if we will be believers or unbelievers. And then He holds us accountable for what He causes, when we had no choice or chance to do anything but what He predetermined we would do. That is an unjust, untrustworthy, unrighteous, unholy, unloving God! And that is not the God of the Bible. And that’s not how He has chosen to exercise His sovereignty.
In a way, I can agree with a certain level of “cause.” He causes His plans to get done, one way or another. He causes us to get into a position where we have to make the choice He knows we are going to make, because He already knows how He’ll use our response for His plans. He causes us to make the decision He knows we are going to make, but He doesn’t CAUSE us to choose what we do.
It’s such a fine line, but it’s a very important distinction (which is why this response is so long). Because our view of this has an enormous effect on how we see God’s character and Scripture and our responsibilities in life. So enormous in fact, that it basically leads to two different Gospels, two completely different theologies.
In one (mine), God sometimes causes things to happen (but He never causes us to sin or to reject Him), but sometimes He just allows things to happen, such as allowing us to make our decisions about obeying or disobeying, about believing or not believing. And whatever we decide, He can and does work it all into His plans somehow. And since they are our decisions, He is just when He holds us accountable and punishes us for sin.
But in Calvinism, Calvi-god causes people to obey or disobey. He causes people to believe in him or to reject him. And then he punishes us for the things he caused us to do, even though we could have never chosen to do anything different that what he forced us to do. Calvi-god says he wants all people to be saved, while he predestines most people to hell, giving them no chance to be saved. Calvi-god supposedly calls all people to be obedient and to believe in him, but he causes people to sin and to reject him because he gets glory by having people in hell. Calvi-god says he “loves” all people and sent Calvi-Jesus to die for all, while he secretly means he only loved the elect enough to send Calvi-Jesus to die for them, AND ONLY FOR THEM.
And Calvinists expect us to still consider Calvi-god trustworthy, holy, righteous, loving, good!
I shudder to think of how a Calvinist will feel when they stand before our holy God, trying to defend their version of the Gospel and what they taught others about our holy God and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Calvinism in NOT the Gospel! Calvi-god is not the God of the Bible!
And if someone can’t see this, I suggest they get on their knees and ask God to show them the truth, before they’ve hardened their hearts so much that they wouldn’t be able to see the truth anymore even if it was staring them in the face.
Preach it. And since you brought it up (and we appear to be on the same wavelength) I literally just finished penning some thoughts on ‘hardening hearts’. Seems like a good place for them. 😉
I wonder if much of the confusion over God ‘hardening hearts’ or so-called judicial hardening is due to semantic error. For whatever reason, the phrase ‘hardened his heart’ has taken on the meaning of condemned or made unable to not sin. It is like Total Depravity in miniature. In reality, the phrase can just as easily, and probably more accurately be said to mean something like ‘strengthened his resolve’.
I think we tend to misunderstand what hardening and softening of hearts is all about, which is pride and dignity. When we read of the hardening of the heart that occurred with Pharaoh in Exodus, we too often read into the passage commonly held preconceptions. We do not fully grasp the position of Pharaoh, a mighty, powerful king who was literally viewed as a god by the people and himself. Imagine his reaction when his long absent, adopted grandson comes striding into his court saying ‘I represent the true God, and this is what he wants you to do.’
Pharaoh, after he recovered from his fit of laughter, would be furious that this shoddy little nobody had the temerity to think he could just march in and make demands upon the mightiest ruler in the world, who had armies and servants who bowed to his every wish. He appeared, at first, to be a little taken aback by Moses’ miracles, but his former arrogance and sense of power was restored when his magicians duplicated them.
Whenever Moses would work some mighty act, Pharaoh would begin to waver, perhaps wondering, ‘How does this little nobody do these things? Maybe there really is a powerful god behind him.’ Then, his magicians would replicate the deed, and Pharaoh would once again be strengthened in his own sense of power and superiority. He would harden his heart against Moses’ pleas, convinced that he was simply a man who had learned how to manage magic spirits, as could his magicians.
However, the plagues Moses induced increased in severity, until eventually the magicians could no longer duplicate them, saying in astonished awe, ‘This IS the finger of God’. Which was a strike against the ego and pride of the Pharaoh who viewed himself as the god of the world. By performing astonishing miracles, which awed even Pharaoh’s servants, God pricked Pharaoh’s pride, and strengthened his resolve to reject Moses’ demands and show who was in charge.
We have long been taught that God directly did something to Pharaoh’s heart, as if he reached down and did something physically to his body. What if, in reality scripture is suggesting that God challenged Pharaoh’s outsize ego, which he knew would effectively strengthen his resolve to prove that he was the god he pretended to be? For, even though Moses and Aaron were acting as intercessors, it was the living God who was challenging Pharaoh, the false god, to prove who truly was the mightiest power in the world. And whenever Pharaoh would begin to waver, to wonder if there was indeed a power mightier than he and the gods he served, he would brush it aside and strengthen his resolve to prove himself and his gods to be the masters of the universe.
We all know something about softening or buttering someone up. If you are trying to win or retain an important client, you take them to fine restaurants, order the best food and wine and so on. If you are a wife who wants to go out for a nice meal or concert, you don’t approach your husband with, ‘You never take me anywhere nice!’
In the same way, God uses gifts and kindness and expressions of his love to soften us up, to urge us to trust in him and live in obedient submission to his loving authority. He went so far as to send his only begotten Son, to suffer and die, to prove his love for us. But when we stubbornly refuse to yield to his entreaties, he is likely to harden us in our rebellion by challenging our false ego and pride, our belief that we can do it on our own.
It is not a matter of God literally changing the chemical makeup of our body, it is a change of approach, in response to our openness or resistance to his entreaties. Just as a smart businessman will know which potential clients to continue showering with extravagant meals and which to write off, God will eventually stop pleading with the stubborn heart, and allow a man to strengthen his resolve to live without him.
TS00, Graceadict, BR.D. (and many others): Great comments and insight! All of you! My understanding of Calvinism, its errors, and how Calvinists think has grown so much over these last several months because of this blog and so many of your comments. Thank you! I am forever grateful!
🙂 You’ve given as much as you have received.
CAN A CALVINIST ESCAPE THE GRIPS OF DETERMINISM WITH A HOLODECK
The Star Trek Next Generation TV series (1987-1994) was an American science-fiction originally created by Gene Roddenberry. The Next Generation era of Star Trek included an interesting new invention – the Holodeck.
The Holodeck became established as standard equipment aboard all star-ships – as a computer generated form of virtual-reality based upon the computer’s ability to create realistic SIMULATIONS and present them to all five of the human senses holographically. SIMULATIONS were created via programs by the projection of emitters specially outfitted in an empty room.
Computers are 100% deterministic – in that they cannot do otherwise than what they are programmed to do. Yet for ship personnel, the computer can create a SIMULATION so absolutely realistic, the person can convince himself the SIMULATION is actually real.
The Holodeck was developed to relieve the stress and isolation of shipboard life for crew personnel who are subject to the confines and limitations (i.e. realities) of life aboard a star-ship.
Calvinists – as they become increasingly drawn into the confines of a Calvin’s completely deterministic world must also experience a proportionate degree of isolation from the primary social-structure of the outer world. A world where people’s experience is the opposite of determinism. For example, the Calvinist must at some point come to grips with the concept that his every thought, choice and desire are mere REFLECTIONS of things originating in the mind of Calvin’s god – precisely activated at specified times to be part of the Calvinist’s cognitive experience.
In contrast to a Deterministic world – two people in an IN-deterministic world may for example be engaged in a conversation. And these two people don’t have the sense that their back-and-forth statements are nothing more than a script generated by an external mind – and they are functionally nothing more than biological entities robotically playing out a scripted program. But that conception of reality is part-and-parcel in a world of Theological Determinism.
So in order to retain a sense of normalcy, and a sense the Calvinist’s cognitive experience lines up with the general conceptions of human autonomy he finds reflected throughout scripture – some Calvinists may become highly ingenious – and learn to invent their own personal IN-deterministic worlds. Deterministically generated of course!
Through an inventive imagination – a Calvinist’s mind can invent highly complex rationalizations – which could follow the pattern of a deterministic THEOS whose decrees are designed to SIMULATE on planet earth – life as it would be in an IN-Deterministic world.
SIMULATIONS of all of the attributes of an IN-deterministic world the Calvinist would otherwise not have at his disposal.
The Calvinist who can invent such imaginations would be able to create his own personal SIMULATED escape from Determinism – his Holodeck.
Its an interesting thought to ponder.
And perhaps some day – we may even observe Calvinist inventions of this sort – posted here at SOT101 :-]
Good comments being made by the non-Calvinists in this thread.
My personal response to the many Calvinist comments, over the years, has been to conclude that Calvinists view the nature of the God described in the Bible as being bipolar, good and evil. They also view the nature of man as being single poled evil. If fallen mankind has only a single poled nature of evil, then a logical conclusion to make is that fallen mankind can only make the evil choice of rejecting Christ. If fallen mankind has a bipolar nature of good and evil, then a logical conclusion to make is that mankind has the freewill capacity to make the good choice of believing in Jesus Christ as his savor or to make the evil choice of rejecting Christ as his savor. If anybody has a bipolar nature of good and evil, man fits that concept not the Triune God described in the Bible.
Hello David and Welcome!
You are very insightful to have discerned the “good-evil” nature inherent in Calvinism. This evolved by Augustine’s synchronization of Gnostic and NeoPlatonist elements into Catholic doctrine. Calvin in absolute adoration for all things Augustine swallowed the camel without question.
The element you are discerning is called “Moral Dualism” where good and evil are Co-equal, Co-necesssary, and Co-Complimentary.
You will notice in Calvinist language many things appear in good-evil pairs. Augustine called this “Antithesis” and as a NeoPlatonist Christian evil was beautiful as it is a manifestation of the ONE.
Good observation David,
And dont forget….if man is only capable of evil, why so many verses talking about how the Devil is out to get him? He is already “dead” so the Devil would not have any need “to blind” him (and Paul would not be able to “convince, persuade and reason with” him).
Welcome David…good stuff.
And of course Total inability is true, if you ignore lots of passages or twist the meaning of words. Why we can even twist this passage below into meaning “Corpse like Inability” just systematically redefine the following: suppress the truth,that which may be know about God, clearly revealed within them, God revealed it to them, clearly seen, being realized, knowing God, so they are without excuse.
This passage is no problem for a Calvinist to twist into meaning “Corpse like Inability”. So what should we expect with the rest of scripture…it’s a piece of cake.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.
Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Rom 1:21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
GraceAdict writes, “Total inability is true, if you ignore lots of passages or twist the meaning of words.”
How about explaining how anyone without faith has an ability to be saved.
Then, “Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed…”
This deals with people who have no faith (and could also have their minds blinded by Satan). Do any of these submit to God? What do we read, “…although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things….”
RH — Asks do you understand the role of faith in salvation?
GA Your system requires you to have a special “gift faith” as a central pillar, so you will do all you can to invent different types of faith to “disprove” any argument…we have gone round and round the merry go round with you and always end up nowhere, but once more here goes.
All of us are using faith/believing. Both the Christian and Non-christian. The Big difference is the OBJECT of our faith or the OBJECT of our Believing. One cannot have Faith in something they have never heard of ( ie the Gospel). Before we hear the Gospel we have faith or belief or Trust in different things…some may have faith in their own goodness, their trust is in their works, some have faith in idols and look to the idol trusting that idol (faith). BUT then they hear the gospel and the faith/trust/belief that they had in their own works in their idol is now placed in Christ who lived a perfect life and died in their place on the cross and rose again the third day.
It is the OBJECT of ones Faith/Belief that makes the difference. Faith in the Gospel comes from hearing the Gospel, before you hear the gospel it is impossible to place your faith in the gospel, instead you had your faith in something else and idol or own works.
RH…please read this slowly
In Greek, Faith and Believe come from the exact same root word (Faith is the Noun) (Believe is the Verb)
Notice below the exact same greek word is used for Believing a Lie as is used for “Believing the Truth that saves”…. The OBJECT of ones Faith is the ONLY different thing, NOT the kind of faith.
SAME FAITH DIFFERENT OBJECT…. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DIFFERENT IN THE KIND of FAITH.(Believing)
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because They Refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may BELIEVE what is FALSE,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not BELIEVE the TRUTH but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Believing what is False and Believing what is True is the exact same greek word. It is also the same word used below. Nothing different. Believe a Lie or Believe in Him and have eternal life.
Joh 3:15-16 that whoever BELIEVES in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him should not perish but have eternal life.
You will invent a New Category of Faith “Gift Faith” that is required to be given to only certain individuals so that only those can be saved…I understand your system…your system requires that you invent this category BUT it is NOT true.
GraceAdict writes, “In Greek, Faith and Believe come from the exact same root word (Faith is the Noun) (Believe is the Verb)”
Faith sisa noun. It is given to a person by God for it is God as Jesus says, “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” It is from God that a person receives assurance of eternal life and conviction of his resurrection when Christ returns. Naturally, the noun, faith, produces the action verb, belief (true belief). They are joined at the hip (so to speak). It is the lack of faith, lack of assurance and conviction, that produces believing what is false.
Then, “You will invent a New Category of Faith “Gift Faith” that is required to be given to only certain individuals so that only those can be saved…I”
Argue from the Scriptures. Jesus said, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” If God is the one who teaches, then we should reasonably expect assurance and conviction (faith) to be the result. If everyone receives assurance and conviction (faith), then everyone will be saved. If some reject salvation, then they were not taught by God and did not have assurance and conviction.
rhutchin – I removed another post from you where you put words in my mouth.
As I said – you are free to represent yourself – but you are not free to speak as a representative for others.
Again – try to make you point within proper boundaries.
Those who argue for Calvinism in this way. Reminds me of a stage where there are some sort of dolls “acting” on the stage, we the non-calvinist say we need to talk about what is behind the current the strings and wires that go behind the current to the person who is making the “actors” on the stage act and do what they are doing.
The Calvinist keeps replying NO, look at the dolls on the stage…they refuse to honestly talk about what is behind the curtain. They keep saying look at the stage in front of the curtain. The dolls are doing such and such and that is why the story is unfolding on the stage as it is…they want to talk about the story on the stage NOT the strings and wires going behind the curtain. The real reason the story is of sin is unfolding on the stage.
Great analogy GraceAdict! :-]
And so true!
GraceAdict writes, “they refuse to honestly talk about what is behind the curtain….they want to talk about the story on the stage NOT the strings and wires going behind the curtain.”
Even you acknowledge the same “strings” behind the curtain as the Calvinist. God determines the date of a person’s birth, the place of his birth, his physical and mental capabilities, the culture into which a person is born. Calvinists will add that people are born without faith and cannot receive faith until they hear the gospel. Without faith, the sin nature with its desires rules determines the choices one makes. Once God has set all this in motion, He doesn’t need to do anything more except restrain the sinful activities of people. Sinful people will sin without prompting from God.
rhutchin
God has set all this in motion, He doesn’t need to do anything more except restrain the sinful activities of people. Sinful people will sin without prompting from God.
br.d
FALSE
Firstly:
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) NOT ONE SPECIFIC [X] can come to pass unless Calvin’s god SPECIFICALLY DECREES that SPECIFIC [X] and ONLY that SPECIFIC [X] come to pass. And then ONLY that SPECIFIC [X] can come to pass – nothing more nothing less.
What you are describing is wind-up toys that Calvin’s god designs to do specific things and then simply winds them up and lets them go.
Having the FUNCTIONALITY of robots – following mechanical, digital, or biological programming.
Secondly on Calvinism’s SIMULATED divine restraint/prevention:
Since no SPECIFIC [X] can come to pass without Calvin’s god DECREEING that SPECIFIC [X] – then if Calvin’s god restrains that SPECIFIC [X] – he would be restraining an [X] he DECREED come to pass.
However – it is LOGICALLY possible for Calvin’s god to create a FAKE PRESENTATION of an [X] which was never going to come to pass.
And by that DECREE create a FAKE PRESENTATION of himself restraining it.
And that SIMULATION is what the Calvinist actually has in divine restraint/prevention.
Calvinists have a library of square-circles, married-bachelors, and FALSE-TRUTHS. :-]
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) NOT ONE SPECIFIC [X] can come to pass unless Calvin’s god SPECIFICALLY DECREES that SPECIFIC [X] and ONLY that SPECIFIC [X] come to pass. And then ONLY that SPECIFIC [X] can come to pass – nothing more nothing less.”
In Calvinism, people are like windup toys (although much more being made in the image of God) who are able to act independent of but not autonomous from God. Thus, God does not have to coerce, force, or impel specific actions by people as they can act as they desire. God, by means of His infinite understanding, can know what people will think or attempt to do before they think or act so God must specifically decree the thought or action to occur before it can. That does not mean that God must initiate the thought or coerce the action in order for it to occur.
Then, “Since no SPECIFIC [X] can come to pass without Calvin’s god DECREEING that SPECIFIC [X] – then if Calvin’s god restrains that SPECIFIC [X] – he would be restraining an [X] he DECREED come to pass.”
That which God restrains is that which He decrees not to come to pass. God restrains those things that have the potential to come to pass and would come to pass without His restraint and that by His decree.
Then, “However – it is LOGICALLY possible for Calvin’s god to create a FAKE PRESENTATION of an [X] which was never going to come to pass. And by that DECREE create a FAKE PRESENTATION of himself restraining it.”
God works all things according to the counsel of His will, so not need for this.
rhutchin
In Calvinism, people are like windup toys
br.d
TRUE
rhutchin
(although much more being made in the image of God)
br.d
If we’re talking about Calvin’s god – that would be TRUE
rhutchin
who are able to act independent of but not autonomous from God.
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) “independent activity” is a LOGICAL impossibility – since the creature CANNOT be/do anything that is not SPECIFICALLY DECREED by Calvin’s god.
As Paul Helms says – “Every twist and turn of every thought and desire is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god”
Labeling that as “Independent” action is nothing more than a SEMANTIC trick.
rhutchin
God does not have to coerce, force, or impel specific actions by people as they can act as they desire.
br.d
This is the Calvinist’s non-coercion non-force argument.
And we are supposed to assume Calvin’s god’s DECREES are FORCE-LESS! :-]
rhutchin
God, by means of His infinite understanding, can know what people will think or attempt to do before they think or act
br.d
This statement could easily be interpreted as Foreknowledge via observation.
And that is no accident! :-]
rhutchin
so God must specifically decree the thought or action to occur before it can.
br.d
TRUE
rhutchin
That does not mean that God must initiate the thought or coerce the action in order for it to occur.
br.d
See answer above:
Ravi Zacharias
-quote
Here me carefully!
If you are TOTALLY DETERMINED, then you are pre-wired, to think the way you do.
Your nature is that you are hard-wired to always come out to one single conclusion.
What is input into the computer is what ultimately comes out.
This is the bondage of TOTAL SUBJECTIVITY.”
rhutchin
That which God restrains is that which He decrees not to come to pass.
br.d
AH! I knew this would eventually have to come out!
DECREEING [NOT X] is the LOGICAL equivalent of [NOT DECREEING X]
Which is the LOGICAL equivalent of NO [X] to restrain/prevent.
So what we have here is a strategically misleading use of the terms “restrain/prevent”
For those not familiar with Calvinism’s SEMANTIC tricks see
CALVINISM AND THE BEAR IN THE WOODS
https://soteriology101.com/2019/04/15/rebuttal-of-john-pipers-articlea-beginners-guide-to-free-will%ef%bb%bf/#comment-35955
However – it is LOGICALLY possible for Calvin’s god to create a FAKE PRESENTATION of an [X] which was never going to come to pass. And by that DECREE create a FAKE PRESENTATION of himself restraining it.”
rhutchin
God works all things according to the counsel of His will, so not need for this.
br.d
Yes we know – Calvinism has many square-circles, married-bachelors, and FALSE-TRUTHs :-]
rhutchin: “although much more being made in the image of God)
br.d: “If we’re talking about Calvin’s god – that would be TRUE’
The Calvinist God being the God of Genesis – “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” This even br.d cannot deny.
This, “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) “independent activity” is a LOGICAL impossibility – since the creature CANNOT be/do anything that is not SPECIFICALLY DECREED by Calvin’s god.”
Man can act independently of God but still be subordinate to God and under God’s control. As an independent action, Adam ate the fruit with this action having been decreed by God who understood that Adam would do this before He created Adam. If br.d objects to the ability of God to understand perfectly all that Adam would do while not having to prompt/coerce/force/compel Adam to act, then let him describe this in a manner different than the Calvinist does. I suspect br.d would have to do the same as the Calvinist.
rhutchin: “God does not have to coerce, force, or impel specific actions by people as they can act as they desire.”
br.d: “This is the Calvinist’s non-coercion non-force argument.
And we are supposed to assume Calvin’s god’s DECREES are FORCE-LESS!”
True. This br.d does not deny as he has no alternative position.
rhutchin: “God, by means of His infinite understanding, can know what people will think or attempt to do before they think or act”
br.d: “This statement could easily be interpreted as Foreknowledge via observation. And that is no accident! ”
But not under Calvinism where God’s foreknowledge is derived from His decrees which, in turn are derived from His understanding. br.d knows this (given his claim to understand the Calvinist system) and he knows that it is the non-Calvinist who sees God’s foreknowledge derived from observation.
Then, “DECREEING [NOT X] is the LOGICAL equivalent of [NOT DECREEING X]
Which is the LOGICAL equivalent of NO [X] to restrain/prevent.”
If X is a logical possibility – e.g., Herod seeking to have Peter killed – then God can decree that Peter live thereby being said to retrain that which would happen without God’s decree. The possibility of Herod putting peter to death would not be a fake presentation (whatever br.d means by that).
rhutchin: “although much more being made in the image of God)
br.d: “If we’re talking about Calvin’s god – that would be TRUE’
rhutchin
The Calvinist God being the God of Genesis – “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” This even br.d cannot deny.
br.d
br.d has not reason to assume Calvin’s god is the god of scripture.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) “independent activity” is a LOGICAL impossibility – since the creature CANNOT be/do anything that is not SPECIFICALLY DECREED by Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
Man can act independently of God but still be subordinate to God and under God’s control.
br.d
Paul Helms
-quote
Every thought and desire – ever twist and turn of each of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god
And you want to call that “independent” activity :-]
rhutchin
“God does not have to coerce, force, or impel specific actions by people as they can act as they desire.”
br.d: “This is the Calvinist’s non-coercion non-force argument.
And we are supposed to assume Calvin’s god’s DECREES are FORCE-LESS!”
rhutchin
True. This br.d does not deny as he has no alternative position.
br.d
Please confirm without ambioguity – you are stating that Calvin’s god DECREES are FORCE-LESS
Let your communication be YEA or NAY
Which is it?
rhutchin
God, by means of His infinite understanding, can know what people will think or attempt to do before they think or act”
br.d
This statement could easily be interpreted as Foreknowledge via observation. And that is no accident! ”
rhutchin
But not under Calvinism where God’s foreknowledge is derived from His decrees which, in turn are derived from His understanding. br.d knows this (given his claim to understand the Calvinist system) and he knows that it is the non-Calvinist who sees God’s foreknowledge derived from observation.
br.d
Firstly:
You need to provide an AUTHORITATIVE quote from John Calvin that EXPLICITLY states the DECREES are derived from understanding. And not some maybe kinda statement from John Calvin that you’ve twisted to make it INFER what you want.
Secondly
If there is such a quote – it would be Calvin’s god’s understanding of what he will DECREE – not his understanding of what the creature MAY OR MAY NOT do based on the creature’s attributes – because all creaturely attributes are the CONSEQUENCE of the DECREE
Thirdly:
As i’ve already noted – this statement is equivocal because it to easily INFERS Foreknowledge via observation – which is REALLY what you are trying to SMUGGLE in – in camouflaged form.
rhutchin
That which God restrains is that which He decrees not to come to pass.
br.d
AH! I knew this would eventually have to come out!
DECREEING [NOT X] is the LOGICAL equivalent of [NOT DECREEING X]
Which is the LOGICAL equivalent of NO [X] to restrain/prevent.
So what we have here is a strategically misleading use of the terms “restrain/prevent”
rhutchin
If X is a logical possibility – e.g., Herod seeking to have Peter killed – then God can decree that Peter live thereby being said to retrain that which would happen without God’s decree. The possibility of Herod putting peter to death would not be a fake presentation (whatever br.d means by that).
br.d
FALSE
What you’ve revealed is this: “That which god restrains is that which he decrees not to come to pass”
Calvin’s god knows a possible event CANNOT come to pass without him DECREEING it.
Calvin’s god knows he is not going to DECREE [X] come to pass.
Therefore Calvin’s god knows [X] is not going to come to pass.
Therefore if what Calvin’s god knows is TRUE – then there is no [X] to restrain/prevent
Divine prevention in Calvinism is simply a SEMANTIC trick.
Trying to label “restraining/preventing” a NON EVENT – no matter how possible.
Calvinism simply needs divine intervention/prevention in order to APPEAR Biblical
But the only way they can dream it up it is to create a FAKE PRESENTATION of it
However it is LOGICALLY possible for Calvin’s god to DECREE a FAKE PRESENTATION of [X] coming to pass – so that he can create a FAKE PRESENTATION of himself restraining/preventing it.
For example he could INFER that [X] is going to come to pass when he knows it isn’t so that he can say he prevented it.
And if Calvin’s god breaches a biblical standard – that is not considered a problem in Calvinism because everything he does is labeled good no matter how evil. As John Piper says – he is UN-impeachable – which simply means no one can impeach him no matter how evil he is.
BR.D — this may not be the best place to ask this…However,… here goes anyway.
1. Could you pass on to Leighton that these short videos are absolutely knocking it out of the park, by making short videos is becomes possible to use in Sunday school classes or teaching forums…great stuff.
2. Could Leighton do one addressing Sovereignty…defining what it is and what it is not 10-15 minutes long? I would love to get people started on their journey out of Calvinism by sending them to a link of this sort. it would also be useful in other teaching forums.
Absolutely! And happy to do so! :-]
From what venue are you receiving info on and access to these videos? Thanks!
GraceAdict writes, “2. Could Leighton do one addressing Sovereignty…defining what it is and what it is not 10-15 minutes long?”
That would be dynamite since neither GraceAdict nor any other non-Calvinist around here seems able to define “sovereign.”
rhutchin
That would be dynamite since neither GraceAdict nor any other non-Calvinist around here seems able to define “sovereign.”
br.d
More precisely – that is the perception that Calvin’s god determined you to have.
And nobody but Calvin’s god knows whether that perception he determined come to pass in your brain – is a TRUE perception or a FALSE perception – because ONLY Calvin’s god determines your perception of your perceptions.
Who wouldn’t want that “sovereignty” :-]
rhutchin: “That would be dynamite since neither GraceAdict nor any other non-Calvinist around here seems able to define “sovereign.””
br.d: “More precisely…”
Even br.d is unable to give us a definition of sovereignty. Perhaps, this is because the only definition available is the Calvinist definition.
rhutchin
Even br.d is unable to give us a definition of sovereignty. Perhaps, this is because the only definition available is the Calvinist definition.
br.d
Calvinists DOUBLE-THINK is so hilarious!
I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist “sovereignty” by detailing one of its manifestations.
Since that manifestation is that the Calvinist is NOT PERMITTED to RATIONALLY AFFIRM a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception – its no wonder they will claim no one can provide a “definition” or an “explanation”.
They remind me of the Solipsist who was relieved to know she was not alone! :-]
rhutchin: “Even br.d is unable to give us a definition of sovereignty. Perhaps, this is because the only definition available is the Calvinist definition.”
br.d: “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist “sovereignty” by detailing one of its manifestations.”
br.d proves my point, “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’” That is why the non-Calvinist cannot define “sovereignty” – because he knows that the Calvinist definition is correct.
rhutchin
Even br.d is unable to give us a definition of sovereignty. Perhaps, this is because the only definition available is the Calvinist definition.”
br.d
I just provided a partial definition of *CALVINIST* “sovereignty” by detailing one of its manifestations.”
rhutchin
br.d proves my point, “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’” That is why the non-Calvinist cannot define “sovereignty” – because he knows that the Calvinist definition is correct.
br.d
AH! A third example of how Calvin’s god determined you to have a FALSE perception.
That’s 3 within a period of around 7 days.
Calvin’s god must be having some interesting fun with you!
When a Calvinist claims to think RATIONALLY – the above serves as a good example! :-]
br.d writes, “AH! A third example of how Calvin’s god determined you to have a FALSE perception.”
We see again that br.d can only define “sovereignty” as “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’” This reinforces the inability of the non-Calvinist to define “sovereignty” other than as the Calvinist does.
br.d
AH! A third example of how Calvin’s god determined you to have a FALSE perception.
rhutchin
We see again that br.d can only define “sovereignty” as “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’” This reinforces the inability of the non-Calvinist to define “sovereignty” other than as the Calvinist does.
br.d
Well firstly – thank you for the affirmation that my LOGICAL analysis – that in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the Calvinist has no way of determining whether any of his perceptions concerning anything are TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines his every perception of his every perception.
And secondly – thank you for providing now 3 examples of Calvin’s god giving you FALSE perceptions – and determining you to perceive them those perceptions as TRUE.
And per your last statement – if you want to think the LOGICAL analysis I provided concerning Calvinist “sovereignty” is anywhere enunciated by Calvinists – then I say go for it!
However at this point I’m much more interested in counting how many FALSE perceptions Calvin’s god is going to give you and within what time windows. That data will form the basis of a trend analysis. Those stats will be useful for developing a base-line for Calvinists in general. :-]
br.d writes, “Well firstly – thank you for the affirmation that my LOGICAL analysis –”
Once again we see that br.d can only define “sovereignty” as “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’” This reinforces the inability of the non-Calvinist to define “sovereignty” other than as the Calvinist does. As much as br.d wants to argue against the Calvinist definition of sovereignty, he has nothing to offer in its place.
Then, “the Calvinist has no way of determining whether any of his perceptions concerning anything are TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines his every perception of his every perception.”
So? The non-Calvinist has no way of knowing whether his perceptions ate true or false, except, as with the Calvinist, he relies entirely on the Scriptures for true perceptions. Who would rely on a corrupted human understanding of issues related to salvation apart from what God tells us through the Scriptures?
Then, ‘thank you for providing now 3 examples of Calvin’s god giving you FALSE perceptions – and determining you to perceive them those perceptions as TRUE.”
God’s gives sinful man true perceptions through that truth God provides in the Scriptures. Where a person deviates from Scriptural truth, he develops false perceptions which God only corrects through the Scriptures. This is true for non-Calvinist as well as Calvinist. Jesus enforced this view in John, “Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
32 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Then, “And per your last statement – if you want to think the LOGICAL analysis I provided concerning Calvinist “sovereignty” is anywhere enunciated by Calvinists – then I say go for it! ”
All you have is, “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’”, so I’ll give you credit for understanding a little bit about Calvinism – after all, Calvinism is not hard to understand. Even you should be able to grasp soem of it.
Then, “However at this point I’m much more interested in counting how many FALSE perceptions Calvin’s god is going to give you and within what time windows.”
All the perceptions a person has outside the Scriptural truth is false.False perceptions are turned to true perceptions as a person comes to understand Scriptural truth. Thus, Paul exhorts, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God,” and in Acts, “The Bereans were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”
br.d
Well firstly – thank you for the affirmation that my LOGICAL analysis – that in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the Calvinist has no way of determining whether any of his perceptions concerning anything are TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines his every perception of his every perception.
rhutchin
Once again we see that br.d can only define “sovereignty” as “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’”
br.d
A RATIONAL thinker would understand all you are stating here is that you affirm my LOGICAL analysis.
Which is why I thanked you for affirming it – I have no problem with that.
rhutchin
This reinforces the inability of the non-Calvinist to define “sovereignty” other than as the Calvinist does.
br.d
Here again I can thank you for affirming my analysis – the Calvinist has no way of determining whether any of his perceptions concerning anything are TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines his every perception of his every perception.
rhutchin
As much as br.d wants to argue against the Calvinist definition of sovereignty, he has nothing to offer in its place.
br.d
As you affirm my statement – then what your saying here is that Calvin’s god has given you this as a perception.
But again as we’ve seen – it LOGICALLY follows you have no way of determining whether that perception is a TRUE perception or a FALSE perception. Good one! :-]
rhutchin
So? The non-Calvinist has no way of knowing whether his perceptions ate true or false, except, as with the Calvinist, he relies entirely on the Scriptures for true perceptions. Who would rely on a corrupted human understanding of issues related to salvation apart from what God tells us through the Scriptures?
br.d
DUH!
Since it is the case (which you affirmed) – the Calvinist has no way of determining whether any of his perceptions concerning anything are TRUE or FALSE because Calvin’s god determines his every perception of his every perception – then it LOGICALLY follows whatever perception you have of scripture is determined by Calvin’s god and not by scripture. And you have no way of knowing whether or not your perception of scripture is TRUE or FALSE – because that determination is EXCLUSIVELY reserved for Calvin’s god.
And since you’ve proven 3 times now that Calvin’s god gives you FALSE perceptions – with the perception that those perceptions were TRUE when they were in fact FALSE – then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the Calvinists’ predicament when it comes to his perceptions of scripture now does it! :-]
BTW:
‘thank you for providing now 3 examples of Calvin’s god giving you FALSE perceptions – and determining you to perceive them those perceptions as TRUE. I’ve enjoyed each of them – and I know now that Calvin’s god will give you more FALSE perceptions for us to discuss.
rhutchin
God’s gives sinful man true perceptions through that truth God provides in the Scriptures.
br.d
Well as we’ve already established through LOGIC and the FALSE perceptions Calvin’s god has given you so far – it LOGICALLY follows Calvin’s god gives TRUE and FALSE perceptions of whatever the Calvinist perceives. Scripture would LOGICALLY fall into that category.
So I’m afraid you can’t escape Calvin’s god determining you to have FALSE perceptions of anything.
rhutchin
Where a person deviates from Scriptural truth, he develops false perceptions which God only corrects through the Scriptures.
br.d
Now here we have FALSE perception number 4.
If this were TRUE then everyone who has not had exposure to scripture would have ONLY FALSE perceptions.
And even jungle people who’ve had no exposure to the outside world – have at least some TRUE perceptions.
So Calvin’s god has given you yet another FALSE perception on this one I’m afraid.
I REALLY think he’s toying with your mind! :-]
rhutchin
Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
32 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
br.d
Well now – there is another verse that is perfectly coherent in an IN-deterministic world in which Calvin’s god doesn’t determine the Calvinist’s every perception. But of course that is NOT THE CASE in Calvinism now is it. The Calvinist is still left not knowing whether or not his perception of “truth” Calvin’s god has determined him to have is TRUE or FALSE. There doesn’t appear to be any escape from Theological Determinism for the Calvinist now does there.
As we’ve shown through LOGIC – and as you’ve affirmed – Calvin’s god simply determines the Calvinist’s perception of “know the truth”.
And as you’ve shown Calvin’s god gives you FALSE perceptions while perceiving them as TRUE – that just doesn’t fare well for the poor Calvinist who can’t determine a TRUE perception from a FALSE one now does it! :-]
Now!
Here is where we get into Calvin’s teaching about that -quote LARGE MIXTURE of Calvinists whom Calvin’s god gives the FALSE perception they are “elect”.
Again we have another example of Calvinists who are unable to discern when Calvin’s god gives them a FALSE perception or a TRUE one. Not only is this LARGE MIXTURE unable to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE one – but ALL Calvinists are in this boat – because they can’t tell the difference between the “elect” Calvinists and the TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists in their midst.
Now – if you want to think the LOGICAL analysis I provided concerning Calvinist “sovereignty” is anywhere enunciated by Calvinists – then I say go for it!
rhutchin
All you have is, “I just provided a partial definition of Calvinist ‘sovereignty…’”, so I’ll give you credit for understanding a little bit about Calvinism – after all, Calvinism is not hard to understand. Even you should be able to grasp soem of it.
br.d
Well -thanks again for acknowledging my analysis.
I could take this last statement as a tacit way of saying my analysis (which showed Calvinists are unable to determine a TRUE perception from a FALSE one) – is enunciated somewhere by Calvinists But I think you’re blowing smoke here. How am I not surprised. :-]
That being said – at this point I’m much more interested in counting how many FALSE perceptions Calvin’s god is going to give you and within what time windows.”
rhutchin
All the perceptions a person has outside the Scriptural truth is false.False perceptions are turned to true perceptions as a person comes to understand Scriptural truth.
br.d
I’ve already used LOGIC to show how this is fallacious reasoning (see above)
But since Calvin teaches you *AS-IF* thinking
-quote “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Then I can understand your wanting to obey those instructions and go about your office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t determine all of your perceptions – including your perceptions of scripture – in every part. :-]
RH has had plenty of people explain it to him…he just refuses to give up chasing his tail.
I am asking for something to point other people to who actually want to learn… not a Calvinist who just keeps playing the redefine words game and playing the AS IF game. We have seen that day in and day out. RH your definition makes God the Author of evil and it profanes the Holy name of God…
I recognize that I am not as smart as Dr Leighton… I respect his ability to put together a video that I can point others to.
I know just what you mean, GA. There are several people who left the Calvinist church we were once a part of who are now struggling to figure out what they believe and what to do with all that they were indoctrinated with for years. Leighton, with Sot101 provides a great resource.
ESV is probably the Calvinist’s favorite translation as they had a host of Calvinist involved in the translation but even in that translation the word Sovereign only comes up 3 times old and new testament combined,,. does the word that is translated Sovereign actually mean total meticulous control of every detail or is it something else? the greek word * δεσπότης * appears 10 times but is translated Sovereign only 2 times. Why?
Let’s look at what the Greek Word actually means.
Strong’s Word Identification system
For Greek words
G1203 δεσπότης
Definition:
“Perhaps from G1210 and πόσις posis (a husband); an absolute ruler (despot): – Lord, master.”
Thayer Definition:
1) a master, Lord
Part of Speech: noun masculine
This Greek word δεσπότης G1203 occurs 10 times in the New Testament only 2 times ESV translates it as Sovereign, if this word was sooo explicitly teaching Sovereign as in meticulous control why not translate it Sovereign in the other cases?
Does it really mean meticulous control of every breath, thought, idea and action or is that Eisegesis ?
Here is how δεσπότης is used in the new testament and we can arrive at a clear indication that it does not mean “universal meticulous control”.
We can see from the passages that the ones under the authority of the δεσπότης are capable of resisting and doing things on their own that are in total opposition to the δεσπότης. That is why in context exhortations to obey and submit are given. In most places the word δεσπότης is translated as “Master”. Why?
.
1Ti 6:1 Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants regard their own MASTERS as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.
1Ti 6:2 Those who have believing MASTERS must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things.
Tit 2:9 Bondservants are to be submissive to their own MASTERS in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the MASTER who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only MASTER and Lord, Jesus Christ.
NOW for the ONLY Two places they translated it as “Sovereign”:
Rev 6:10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
Act 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,
My contention is that you could be consistent and translate δεσπότης — with the Word “Sovereign” in each of these places and then we would be able to clearly see that Sovereign does not mean — Meticulous divine control but instead it means something quite different. As in the cases where it is translated MASTER it is clear that the subjects can oppose their MASTER and they do things that are in total opposition to their MASTER with genuine freedom.
Do this as a test: Replace “Master” with “Sovereign” in these verses this will help you see what Sovereign REALLY means in Scripture.
Graceadict writes, “Do this as a test: Replace “Master” with “Sovereign” in these verses this will help you see what Sovereign REALLY means in Scripture.”
If “sovereign” applies to humans, but imperfectly, how much more must it apply to God, but perfectly. To say that God is sovereign means that He has the power, wisdom, and authority to do anything He chooses with, and within, His creation. Theopedia defines it this way:
“The Sovereignty of God is the biblical teaching that all things are under God’s rule and control, and that nothing happens without His direction or permission. God works not just some things but all things according to the counsel of His own will (see Eph. 1:11). His purposes are all-inclusive and never thwarted (see Isa. 46:11); nothing takes Him by surprise. The sovereignty of God is not merely that God has the power and right to govern all things, but that He does so, always and without exception. In other words, God is not merely sovereign de jure (in principle), but sovereign de facto (in practice).”
Isaiah 46 tells us, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ [For example] Calling a bird of prey from the east, [or] The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.”
Even the pagan king, Nebuchadnezzar, figured it out saying, “God’s dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?”…Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and His ways justice. And those who walk in pride He is able to put down.”
rhutchin
If “sovereign” applies to humans, but imperfectly, how much more must it apply to God, but perfectly.
br.d
It is a LOGICAL FALLACY to equate perfection with Theological Determinism.
rhutchin
To say that God is sovereign means that He has the power, wisdom, and authority to do anything He chooses with, and within, His creation.
br.d
A statement which is LOGICALLY coherent with an IN-deterministic world.
rhutchin
Theopedia defines it this way:
br.d
Notice here how the Calvinist has to punt to a Calvinistically skewed definition.
Also the language in this definition is deceptive because the term “permission” in Calvinism is used in a strategically misleading manner.
Calvin’s god permits ONLY what he DECREES – nothing more – nothing less.
Therefore Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Adam to not eat the fruit.
Refraining from eating the fruit was not an available option given to Adam.
‘Calvinistically slanted’ is being generous. I believe Heather would call it ‘hogwash’. There is absolutely nothing in a legitimate definition of sovereign that dictates ‘that all things are under God’s rule and control, and that nothing happens without His direction or permission’. Many nations have sovereigns, yet none can claim to direct or permit everything that happens within their domain. There has never existed a sovereign nation without crime, disease, abuse, disaster and countless other events over which the sovereign ruler had absolutely no say. That does not make him not sovereign, it simply made him not God. God is, of course, far more than sovereign.
Nor does any legitimate definition declare that a sovereign ‘works not just some things but all things according to the counsel of His own will (see Eph. 1:11).’ In no known nation, even the most dictatorial, has a sovereign been able to work all things according to his counsel or will’. Whatever scripture states about how God’s control manifests itself, it is not dictated by the use of the generic word ‘master’ or ‘sovereign’.
Again, even if one affirmed that scripture teaches God’s ‘purposes are all-inclusive and never thwarted (see Isa. 46:11)’ this is not to be deduced from the word ‘master’ or ‘sovereign’.
The real kicker is the final statement that ‘The sovereignty of God is not merely that God has the power and right to govern all things, but that He does so, always and without exception. In other words, God is not merely sovereign de jure (in principle), but sovereign de facto (in practice).’ It would appear that this statement is an attempt to declare God’s meticulous divine deteminism, which is nowhere declared in scripture.
Countless scriptures have been presented on these threads countless times proving that no such thing is true and that many, many things do and have taken place which God neither ordained, desired or approved of. Permitted? Yes, but permission of that which is not desired or approved is a far different concept than dictatorially deciding and irresistibly bringing to pass.
Yep, hogwash.
Calvinism’s number one exegetical rule:
All scripture MUST affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Any verse that does not must be made void.
br.d writes, “Calvinism’s number one exegetical rule: All scripture MUST affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.”
In other words, all Scriptures affirm that God is sovereign, of infinite understanding, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all the other omni’s. Short form, “All Scripture must affirm that God is God.
br.d
Calvinism’s number one exegetical rule: All scripture MUST affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Any verse that does not must be made void.”
rhutchin
In other words, all Scriptures affirm that God is sovereign, of infinite understanding, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all the other omni’s. Short form, “All Scripture must affirm that God is God.
br.d
Thanks rhutchin – we get the picture :-]
TS00 writes, “permission of that which is not desired or approved is a far different concept than dictatorially deciding and irresistibly bringing to pass. ”
Except when God is the one granting permission. God ever observes all that takes place in His creation – “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good.”. God has an infinite understanding of His creation and thereby has an initimate knowledge of present activities and all future events that flow from those present activities. Thus, we can say that God “permits” Adam to eat the fruit or that God permits Cain to murder Abel. In saying that God “permits,” we mean that God decrees the event to occur – that Adam eat the fruit or that Cain murder Abel. Because He is sovereign – and this consequent to His infinite understanding and omnipotent power – God cannot escape responsibility for everything that occurs – necessarily, God is the author of all that happens. This does not mean that God either prompted or forced or coerced or compelled Adam to eat the fruit or Cain to murder Abel but that God had to decide (or decree) that the event happen in order for it to happen. Thus, we read, “If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?” So, also, the thousands of prophecies in the prophets.
rhutchin
Except when God is the one granting permission. God ever observes all that takes place in His creation
br.d
“granting permission” – “observes all that takes place”
*AS-IF* he isn’t the SOURCE/ORIGIN and doesn’t micro-control every micro-second of it. :-]
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points
br.d writes, “granting permission” – “observes all that takes place”
*AS-IF* he isn’t the SOURCE/ORIGIN and doesn’t micro-control every micro-second of it.”
That which God, through His infinite understanding, decreed in eternity past, He then observes as that which He decreed plays out in the course of time and in the course of time God grants that which He had earlier decreed. Necessarily, God’s understanding is the source of His decrees and God’s decrees cover every aspect of His creation as there is nothing He does not understand.
br.d
Calvinist language tricks like “granting permission” or Calvin’s god “observes all that takes place”
*AS-IF* he isn’t the SOURCE/ORIGIN and doesn’t micro-control every micro-second of it.”
rhutchin
That which God, through His infinite understanding, decreed in eternity past, He then observes as that which He decreed plays out in the course of time and in the course of time God grants that which He had earlier decreed. Necessarily, God’s understanding is the source of His decrees and God’s decrees cover every aspect of His creation as there is nothing He does not understand.
br.d
So all the SOT101 reader has to do now is take this last statement and go back to your post with those phrases and discern the differences in the INFERENCE.
Understanding Calvinism is simple:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
Very helpful, GA, and this can be done with virtually any word in scripture. Not only did the translators unavoidably inflict their own presuppositions and understandings of meanings onto the text, but so does very reader. Words change in meaning and usage in as short a span as a decade; we are unwise to not realize that the meanings inherent to the translated English – already bearing bias – will have undergone oftentimes drastic change, to the point that the old meaning has been entirely lost.
Hence, it seems pointless to argue over what the meaning of some English term is – like ‘Sovereign’, when it is not even a word that was inspired by the Spirit of God. We are blessed to have so much scholarship available to allow us to study the use and meaning of words from the original languages of scripture. Yet many choose to quibble over the meanings of English translations, as if those words can said to be unquestionable and without fault.
I am not advocating not studying; quite the opposite. I love to do word studies, and gather the etymologies and ancient uses of words. It gives more insight and allows one to consider various possible meanings, including ones that have not been ‘chosen’ by those who declare ‘orthodoxy’.
Thanks G.A. for your thoughts and study on the word “sovereign”. Actually I think the Greek word – κυριος – fits the idea of we have of “control” in Sovereignty, than does – δεσποτης – which I think has more of the idea of “ownership” first and “control” secondarily. But neither word suggests in and of themselves meticulous control over the servant. The term “Master” would be a good translation in every context of δεσποτης.
It seems to me, the most we can judge from the words used in scripture is that God is our owner, to whom we owe respect and submission. It is simply eisegesis to insist on one’s own particular interpretation of what that ownership/submission looks like. The verses GA listed reveal that there are various sorts of masters/sovereigns, which would seem to negate the possibility that ‘sovereign’ has one and only one possible written-in-stone meaning that applies in any and all circumstances.
Most grant that the Creator God is the Sovereign ruler of his creation. Much beyond that usually entails a good deal of philosophizing. The definition rhutchin just posted is purely manmade, with absolutely no legitimate rationale for the assumptions presented as fact. Yet this is what Calvinism, and other fundamentalists tend to do with the words of scripture.
TS00 writes, “the most we can judge from the words used in scripture is that God is our owner,”
Also our creator, “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” Also, God is sovereign over His creation as Nebuchadnezzar discovered, ” I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?” Of this TS00 says, “The definition rhutchin just posted is purely manmade, with absolutely no legitimate rationale for the assumptions presented as fact. Yet this is what Calvinism, and other fundamentalists tend to do with the words of scripture.”
That’s correct.
I believe that κυριος within the Greek language of fallen man often referred to brute-power unchecked and often evil.
Caligula for example would have been called κυριος. And anyone who refused to call him that would probably die an exceedingly perverted death. For Caligula’s good pleasure of-course.
Funny how “for Caligula’s good pleasure” parallels “for his good pleasure” in the Calvinist definition of “sovereignty”
br.d writes, “Funny how “for Caligula’s good pleasure” parallels “for his good pleasure” in the Calvinist definition of “sovereignty”
The Calvinist definition being based on the Scriptures:
“the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify the humble with salvation.”
“it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”
“God predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,”
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,…Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.”
br.d
Funny how “for Caligula’s good pleasure” parallels “for his good pleasure” in the Calvinist definition of “sovereignty”
rhutchin
The Calvinist definition being based on the Scriptures:….etc
br.d
Dr. Kenneth M. Wilson – Oxford Scholar – The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism
-quote
“With Augustine and thus Calvin, they quote the Bible, and especially their favorite passages from the Apostle Paul. Its just that they are incorrect in how they interpret the Apostle Paul. As we talked last time, they take a Manichaean Gnostic interpretation, and not an Early Church interpretation of these scriptures.
People make the claim that Augustine was not the “First” to teach unconditional election. But I would point out that……he wasn’t the “First” – but he was the first “Christian” to teach it. Because the Stoics the Gnostics and the Manicheans all taught unconditional election. And that’s why the early church fathers refuted them.”
br.d: “Funny how “for Caligula’s good pleasure” parallels “for his good pleasure” in the Calvinist definition of “sovereignty”
rhutchin: “The Calvinist definition being based on the Scriptures:….etc”
I had said, “The Calvinist definition being based on the Scriptures:
“the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify the humble with salvation.”
“it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”
“God predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,”
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,…Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.”
br.d concedes this point and takes off on another tangent.
rhutcin
br.d concedes this point and takes off on another tangent.
br.d
You are fun to watch rhutchin! :-]
br.d writes, “You are fun to watch rhutchin! ”
Thank you for not denying my comment.
Calvinsts are the Kings of Redefining words:
This is an extreme example but it follows from how they so freely redefine words. We were in a church awhile back and the Calvinist pastor was using Matt 28 here are his exact words “Go means Stay” he then proceeded to explain why the great commission means something different today because the people in the first century already went, so now “Go means Stay” where you are. Very creative indeed.
Now all Calvinists are not going to be the blatant BUT that is one of their strategies simply REDEFINE WORDS, usually in a more subtle way as we see so clearly on this site. Thanks BR.D for exposing it.
Why you can make the Bible say anything…literally anything if you can redefine words….You can even make God the Author of Evil. The sky is the limit when you give yourself and your system the ability to redefine any word.
GraceAditc writes, “Matt 28 here are his exact words “Go means Stay” he then proceeded to explain why the great commission means something different today because the people in the first century already went, so now “Go means Stay” where you are. Very creative indeed.”
Whether a pastor is Calvinist or non-Calvinist, you should do as the Bereans, who “were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”
FOH writes, “He is already “dead” so the Devil would not have any need “to blind” him (and Paul would not be able to “convince, persuade and reason with” him).”
Man is spiritually dead – a condition of the heart. Thus, God must give spiritually dead people a new heart and instill faith to bring such people to salvation. Satan blinds the mind or the ability to reason. We see many people reasoning that it is better to spend eternity in heaven rather than hell. These Jesus spoke of when He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” It is these that Satan has blinded to the gospel.
rhutchin
Man is spiritually dead – a condition of the heart. Thus, God must give spiritually dead people a new heart
br.d
Right – Calvin’s god DECREES their initial condition – NOT PERMITTING otherwise – and then DECREES whatever comes next the same way. We already know how that works.
David Gemiden writes, “My personal response to the many Calvinist comments, over the years, has been to conclude that Calvinists view the nature of the God described in the Bible as being bipolar, good and evil”
As Jesus said, “No one is good but One, that is, God.” So, Calvinists believe. However, God is sovereign and in full control of all evil events, (If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?} By His perfect wisdom, God works the evil works of people into His perfect plan (e.g., we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.)
Then, “If fallen mankind has only a single poled nature of evil, then a logical conclusion to make is that fallen mankind can only make the evil choice of rejecting Christ.”
Fallen man without faith – Correct??
Then, “If fallen mankind has a bipolar nature of good and evil, then a logical conclusion to make is that mankind has the freewill capacity to make the good choice of believing in Jesus Christ as his savor…”
A man given faith – Correct??
Then, “If anybody has a bipolar nature of good and evil, man fits that concept ….”
Anyone with faith – Correct??
Do you understand the role of “faith” in salvation?
David Gemiden
My personal response to the many Calvinist comments, over the years, has been to conclude that Calvinists view the nature of the God described in the Bible as being bipolar, good and evil”
rhutchin
As Jesus said,….etc
br.d
Dr. Ken Wilson, Oxford – The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism
From researching the early Church writings on scripture and comparing them, we can see that Augustine and Calvin take a Manichean Gnostic interpretation of scripture which deviated from early Christian interpretation of scripture.
To see the whole interview with Dr. Wilson follow this link:
https://soteriology101.com/2019/08/05/did-the-early-church-fathers-teach-calvinism/
One of Calvinism’s favorite sayings was brought up in a recent comment: “Man is spiritually dead … so therefore God has to give him a new heart (i.e. “force faith on him through election).”
But the fundamental problem with this is that Calvinists decide for themselves what “dead” means, contrary to the Bible. They say that “spiritually dead” is just like being physically dead, like how a dead body just lays there, all dead, and can’t do anything at all. They say that this is how our spirits are – like dead bodies that can’t do anything for themselves, not even want God or seek God or think about God, unless God causes us to (well, the “elect” only, of course).
But it’s their view of “dead” that’s wrong. (If our spirits are so physically dead and can’t do anything, then how can we sin and rebel against God? Dead people can’t rebel or reject God or disobey. Dead people can’t do anything. So I guess Calvinists believe in Robot Zombies then, because that’s what the reprobate would have to be. If they are still dead and can’t do ANYTHING, then everything they do must be because God is controlling their dead spirits.)
But being spiritually dead is not the same thing as being physically dead. Do not let their terrible analogy mislead you. Because although we are spiritually dead (separated spiritually from God because of sin), it doesn’t mean our brains stopped working. We can still think and reason and sense that something is missing in our lives and want God and reach for God. And given the many, many calls to seek Him, to choose Him, God wants us to use our living brains to reach out for Him and believe in Him. And He can expect this of us because He knows it’s possible.
You know who else was considered dead? The prodigal son. And he “came to his senses,” reasoned that it would be better to go back to his father, and returned home.
We must always, always question and challenge the foundational misconceptions and assumptions of Calvinism.
Calvinism: A house of cards built on a foundation of Jell-O!
heather writes, “But the fundamental problem with this is that Calvinists decide for themselves what “dead” means, contrary to the Bible.”
Under Calvinism, a person is spiritually dead because they have a sin nature and lack faith.
Then, “If our spirits are so physically dead and can’t do anything, then how can we sin and rebel against God? Dead people can’t rebel or reject God or disobey.”
Physically dead people cannot respond to God. Physically alive but spiritually dead people cannot respond to God – they can sin.
Then, “Because although we are spiritually dead (separated spiritually from God because of sin), it doesn’t mean our brains stopped working. We can still think and reason and sense that something is missing in our lives and want God and reach for God.”
Not without faith.
rhutchin
Sinful people will sin without prompting from [Calvin’s] god.
br.d
We must always remember – a Calvinist will always HIDE more than he reveals.
The SEMANTIC trick here is he use of the term “prompting”.
John Calvin
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what he *INSPIRES*. – (A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every THOUGHT and DESIRE, kept in being by god, but every TWIST and TURN of each
of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points :-]
rhutchin: “Sinful people will sin without prompting from [Calvin’s] god.”
br.d: “We must always remember – a Calvinist will always HIDE more than he reveals.
The SEMANTIC trick here is he use of the term “prompting”.
No semantic trick here. By “prompting” we mean to coerce, force, or compel. God inspires as Calvin says but without prompting, coercing, forcing, compelling. Every though of the person is under God’s control as Helms notes, but God need not prompt, coerce, force, or compel those thoughts.
As the Proverb said, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
rhutchin: “Sinful people will sin without prompting from [Calvin’s] god.”
br.d:
“We must always remember – a Calvinist will always HIDE more than he reveals.
The SEMANTIC trick here is he use of the term “prompting”.
rhutchin
No semantic trick here. By “prompting” we mean to coerce, force, or compel. God inspires as Calvin says but without prompting, coercing, forcing, compelling. Every though of the person is under God’s control as Helms notes, but God need not prompt, coerce, force, or compel those thoughts.
br.d
The term “prompting” does not imply force or coercion
The term “prompting” in the current vernacular can often imply “suggest”.
And Calvin’s god does not SUGGEST a creaturely action – he RENDERS-CERTAIN every SPECIFIC creaturely action
So the term “prompting” is misleading.
rhutchin
As the Proverb said, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
br.d
And in Theological Determinism Calvin’s god is the one who plans man’s way.
The man simply acts out whatever is Calvinist’s god’s programming for that man.
But that verse is perfectly coherent with an IN-deterministic world-view in which a man’s way is not determined for him by someone external to him. :-]
br.d writes, “The term “prompting” does not imply force or coercion”
LOL!!! Thus, God does not prompt/suggest; God does not coerce; God does not force; God does not compel.
rhutchin: “As the Proverb said, ‘A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.’”
br.d: The man simply acts out whatever is Calvinist’s god’s programming for that man.
As the Proverb says, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” LOL!!! To br.d that describes God programming the man.
rhutchin
As the Proverb said, ‘A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.’”
br.d:
In Theological Determinism man does not determine/plan his own way Calvin’s god does.
And determines/plans everything – leaving nothing left over for the creature to determine/plan.
The man simply acts out whatever is Calvinist’s god’s programming for that man.
However this verse is coherent in an IN-deterministic world were man’s plans are determined by himself and not by an external mind.
rhutchin
As the Proverb says, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” LOL!!! To br.d that describes God programming the man.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin for showing what Calvinist (so called) logic with scripture looks like :-]
No need for me to say once again – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel!
I know not whether I am more amazed or amused to watch rhutchin continuously site scripture that refutes Calvinism, then chastise the non-Calvinist for disagreeing.
It is not the scriptures that you, and others, refute; it is the gall of those who hold to one assertion, then cite scripture that often declares its opposite, without acknowledging the glaring contradiction between the two. Other times, it is the blatant faulty interpretation that takes a logical statement of scripture and twists it into something strange and hideous.
I could take that proverb cited and see that according to the desires of his heart will God ‘direct’ a man’s steps. Should he desire to find God in all of his truth and beauty, God will grant him the help necessary to, step by step, find him. Should he desire to reject God’s goodness, deny his promises and resist his commands, God will allow him, step by step, to arrive at the destination he has chosen for himself.
What a horrible picture is painted in the minds of those who assert that God controls men in every minute aspect of their beings, while deceitfully allowing them to falsely perceive themselves as free to pursue the desires of their own hearts. Such a distorted mindset will lead a man to view “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps” as a statement of God’s secretive, disingenuous, manipulation and control of men, who he has misdirected to foolishly believe they are actually able to make and follow their own plans.
One’s view of God completely colors his interpretation of every word of scripture.
Yes absolutely! The Calvinist brain is so diseased with DOUBLE-THINK his brain can’t discern any LOGICAL difference between “man plans man’s way” and “Calvin’s god plan’s man’s way”.
We’re actually blessed to have Calvinists posting here because of the degree of OBVIOUS IRRATIONAL thinking they manifest.
When rhutchin says things like “Calvinists combine logic with scripture” reminds me of a drunk person claiming to be sober. :-]
TS00 writes, “I could take that proverb cited and see that according to the desires of his heart will God ‘direct’ a man’s steps.”
Same with Calvinism. Examples being Eve, then Adam, eating the fruit, the actions of Joseph’s brothers in their jealousy, the Jews conspiring to kill Jesus, etc. God can use the desires of a person’s heart to accomplish His purposes.
Then, “Should he desire to find God in all of his truth and beauty,…Should he desire to reject God’s goodness,…”
No person desires God without God having taken the first step as Jesus said, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…” Paul said, “God who has begun a good work in you…” and “we are God’s workmanship,…” All people desire to reject God and His goodness as Paul said, “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” and “remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh…that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”
Then, “What a horrible picture is painted in the minds of those who assert that God controls men in every minute aspect of their beings,,,,”
God, by virtue of His sovereignty is in control of His creation. God controls His creation and in that control gives sinful humanity the ability to do as they desire so long as it fits His purposes. So, Eve, then Adam, eat the fruit, Joseph’s brothers follow their jealousy, the Jews conspire to kill Jesus, etc. All this happens under God’s eyes and under His control.
The, “…while deceitfully allowing them to falsely perceive themselves as free to pursue the desires of their own hearts.”
Falsely perceive??? What is false about God giving people over to their desires to pursue the desires of their own hearts.? God often directs the steps of people according to their desires as the examples already noted illustrate. However, God is always in control and exercises His control to counter man’s desires in order to attain His purposes.
rhutchin
God can use the desires of a person’s heart to accomplish His purposes.
br.d
Another great example of how Calvinists have to HIDE more then they can reveal.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t TOTALLY DETERMINE what the man’s desire will be in order to use it.
A puppet master determines all of the attributes of each puppet in order to use each one an actor providing its role in the story line.
By this example we can see how – in order for the Calvinist to get Proverbs 16:9 to make any sense – the Calvinist has to employ *AS-IF* thinking. A world in which the THEOS determines/plans every part of man’s way *AS-IF* he doesn’t.
And that is why John Calvin teaches -quote “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
*AS-IF* thinking is required for the Calvinist to APPEAR biblical – and to live in any degree of NORMALCY.
No need for me to say – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel. :-]
br.d writes, “But this example we can see how – in order for the Calvinist to get Proverbs 16:9 to make any sense – the Calvinist has to employ *AS-IF* thinking. A world in which the THEOS determines/plans every part of man’s way *AS-IF* he doesn’t.”
No *AS-IF* thinking involved. Proverbs 16:9 – “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” – means what it says.
Then, “No need for me to say – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel. ”
br.d is still not able to explain how this occurs or to give an example.
br.d
By this example we can see how – in order for the Calvinist to get Proverbs 16:9 to make any sense – the Calvinist has to employ *AS-IF* thinking. A world in which the THEOS determines/plans every part of man’s way *AS-IF* he doesn’t.”
rhutchin
No *AS-IF* thinking involved. Proverbs 16:9 – “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” – means what it says.
br.d
*AS-IF* in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god isn’t the SOLE Determiner/Planner of man’s way – and NOT man or man’s heart.
Too funny!
No need for me to say – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel. ”
rhutchin
br.d is still not able to explain how this occurs or to give an example.
br.d
With the evidence in front of our nose – you’re in tail-chasing mode again rhutchin – going in circles again.
And you never need my help for that. :-]
br.d writes, “*AS-IF* in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god isn’t the SOLE Determiner/Planner of man’s way – and NOT man or man’s heart.”
No *AS-IF* here. Calvinists readily admit that God determines the day of a person’s birth, the day ot his/her death. their physical and intellectual abilities, their lack of faith and the deceitfulness of the heart. God understands all this and how it plays out in the thoughts of a person and is thereby able to decree their way. This consistent with Ephesians, “God works (i.e., decrees) all things according to the counsel (i.e., His understanding) of His will (i.e., His purpose).
If you cn explain how this “contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.,” giev it a try.
br.d
AS-IF* in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god isn’t the SOLE Determiner/Planner of man’s way – and NOT man or man’s heart.”
rhutchin
No *AS-IF* here.
br.d
If that is true then acknowledge in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god is the SOLE Determiner/Planner of man’s way – and NOT man or any attribute of man. Therefore the verse in question doesn’t apply.
rhutchin
Calvinists readily admit that God determines the day of a person’s birth, the day ot his/her death. their physical and intellectual abilities, their lack of faith and the deceitfulness of the heart.
br.d
What Calvinists HIDE is 100 times more important than what they reveal.
In *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god Determines/Plans *EVERYTHING* – leaving nothing left over for nature or creatures to Determine/Plan. That is why it’s called *UNIVERSAL*.
rhutchin
God understands all this and how it plays out in the thoughts of a person and is thereby able to decree their way.
br.d
Since the eye cannot blink without Calvin’s god DECREEING when/where/how it blinks – what Calvin’s god understands concerning the creature is what he DECREES concerning the creature.
rhutchin
This consistent with Ephesians, “God works (i.e., decrees) all things according to the counsel (i.e., His understanding) of His will (i.e., His purpose).
br.d
I never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism with scripture.
But thank you for providing a verse that is LOGICALLY coherent with IN-determinism
rhutchin
If you cn explain how this “contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.,” giev it a try.
br.d
Sorry rhutchin – no one here is fooled by that maneuver.
John Calvin
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
In this case the Calvinist goes about *AS-IF* man’s way is not SOLELY determined/planned in every part
We understand Calvinism’s need for *AS-IF* thinking. :-]
br.d writes, “If that is true then acknowledge in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god is the SOLE Determiner/Planner of man’s way ”
This is explained in Proverbs 16:9, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” The verse identifies two determining factors: (1) A man’s heart plans his way and (2) the LORD directs his steps.” We read in Acts that Herod put James to death. Herod planned to put James to death and God gave him the freedom to do so. Then, we read that Herod wanted to put Peter to death and had Peter arrested for that purpose. However, God removed Peter from jail and the threat of death. In the case of James, God’s plan was for Herod to put James to death. In the case of Peter, it was not God’s plan for Herod to put Peter to death. In both cases, Proverbs 16:9 is true. God was the final arbiter of the outcome.
Then, “In *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god Determines/Plans *EVERYTHING* – leaving nothing left over for nature or creatures to Determine/Plan. That is why it’s called *UNIVERSAL*.”
This explained in Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will…” All that happens is determined by God and reflects the counsel of God’s will. However, as Proverbs 16:9 tells us, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” Thus, people can plot and plan, as Herod plotted the deaths of James and Peter; in the former case, God gave Herod is desire; in the latter case, God did not give Herod his desire.
Then, “Since the eye cannot blink without Calvin’s god DECREEING when/where/how it blinks – what Calvin’s god understands concerning the creature is what he DECREES concerning the creature.”
God made man with the automatic reaction of eye-blinking to prevent the eye drying out. God does not have to remind the body to blink as God created the body to do so automatically when necessary. Despite eye-blinking being an automatic function of the body, God is still in control and that automatic function works only because God says it can. As in the case of Herod desiring to kill James and then Peter, God ave Herod his desire with respect to James and denied Herod his desire with respect to Peter.
Then, “But thank you for providing a verse that is LOGICALLY coherent with IN-determinism”
Looks like Ephesians 1:11 is consistent with both determinism and determinism.
Then, rhutchin: “If you cn explain how this “contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.,” give it a try.”
br.d: “Sorry rhutchin – no one here is fooled by that maneuver.”
In other words, br.d cannot do it. But he says, “In this case the Calvinist goes about *AS-IF* man’s way is not SOLELY determined/planned in every part.” I don’t know of a Calvinist who does this. The Calvinist assumes that God is in control of he future and has determined all future events. Thus, all God’s promises are certain as God has determined them to be certain.
br.d
Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking is needed (*AS-IF* in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god isn’t the SOLE Determiner/planner of EVERYTHING – including man’s way
rhutchin
No *AS-IF* here
br.d
If that is true then acknowledge in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god is the SOLE Determiner/Planner of man’s way ”
This is explained in Proverbs 16:9, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” The verse identifies two determining factors: (1) A man’s heart plans his way and (2) the LORD directs his steps.” ….etc
br.d
Thank you for showing how Proverbs 16:9 LOCALLY affirms an IN-deterministic world in which man’s way is NOT SOLELY Determined by an external mind – and NOT by man. And that of course rules out Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism)
rhutchin
God was the final arbiter of the outcome.
br.d
Thanks – another example of *AS-IF* thinking.
In this case *AS-IF* in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god isn’t the SOLE arbiter of every outcome :-]
In *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god Determines/Plans *EVERYTHING* – leaving nothing left over for nature or creatures to Determine/Plan. That is why it’s called *UNIVERSAL*.”
rhutchin
This explained in Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will…” All that happens is determined by God and reflects the counsel of God’s will. However, as Proverbs 16:9 tells us, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” …..etc
br.d
John Calvin teaches the Calvinist *AS-IF* thinking
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Thank you rhutchin for providing the examples of how this looks :-]
Since the eye cannot blink without Calvin’s god DECREEING when/where/how it blinks – what Calvin’s god understands concerning the creature is what he DECREES concerning the creature.”
rhutchin
God does not have to remind the body to blink as God
br.d
Notice the language here “does not have to” when in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) NO specific event can come to pass without Calvin’s god DECREEING that specific event.
Paul Helms
-quote
“Not only is EVERY ATOM and MOLECULE, every THOUGH and DESIRE, …… every TWIST and TURN of each of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of God”
John Calvin
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He *INSPIRES*. – (A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
But thank you ruthcin for providing a verse that is LOGICALLY coherent with IN-determinism
rhutchin
Looks like Ephesians 1:11 is consistent with both determinism and determinism.
br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
The ancient Reformed Divines such as Francis Turretin advised us to hold these truths in tension without allowing either one to cancel out the other. However by affirming UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM and a compatibilistic view of freedom the Calvinist abolishes the mystery. Where there is no contingency in the world, and *EVERYTHING* we think and do is CAUSALLY DETERMINED by God.”
And thus we see Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) in which man’s way is SOLELY determined/planned NOT by man but by Calvin’s god – is not affirmed in Proverbs 16:9 “man’s heart plans his own way”.
Sorry rhutchin – I suggest you search for a verse that you can use to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
The rest of your comments were simply following the same ruse
No one here is fooled by the endless tail-chasing “you didn’t explain it” routine.
But please continue to give us more examples of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking!
For the RATIONAL SOT101 reader – they are easy to detect. :-]
rhutchin: “God can use the desires of a person’s heart to accomplish His purposes.”
br.d: “*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t TOTALLY DETERMINE what the man’s desire will be in order to use it.”
No AS-IF here. God determined people’s desires as a consequence of Adam’s sin. God enforced the penalty on Adam and his descendants – Adam’s descendants were to be born with a sin nature and a heart Jeremiah described as “deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” In addition, Adam’s descendants would be born without faith and could only receive faith as a gift from God when they heard the gospel. God, understanding that Adam would sin by eating the fruit, also understood the sinful desires of Adam’s descendants and incorporated all His understanding into His plan as we read in Ephesians, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will…”
br.d affirms this; he doesn’t like it.
rhutchin: “God can use the desires of a person’s heart to accomplish His purposes.”
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t TOTALLY DETERMINE what the man’s desire will be in order to use it.”
rhutchin
No AS-IF here. God determined people’s desires as a consequence of Adam’s sin.
br.d
DUH! *AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t TOTALLY DETERMINE Adam’s sin – leaving Adam with nothing to determine on the matter.
And yes I know the argument – an attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
The closer one leads the Calvinist up the CAUSAL chain back to its SOURCE/ORIGIN – more terrified the Calvinist gets! :-]
rhutchin:
Ephesians, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will…” br.d affirms this; he doesn’t like it.
br.d
AH! Another example of Calvin’s god planting a FALSE perception into your brain!
That’s two FALSE perceptions within a few days.
And indicator of how many Calvin’s god determines you to have.
The fun part of this is that per Theological Determinism – since Calvin’s god determines your perceptions and not you – you have absolutely no ability to discern when a perception Calvin’s god has given you is TRUE or FALSE.
Any stock investor would know – putting money on your perceptions would be a losing investment! :-]
It is something of a stretch to take a verse in the middle of a poetic passage concerning a wicked and rebellious people against whom God has declared his wrath and suggest that this applies to each and every man ever born. The hearts of these rebellious men were indeed ‘desperately wicked and deceitful above all things’. Yet in this very passage, Jeremiah contrasts the blessedness of those who trust in the Lord to these wicked and deceitful men.
It is simply outrageous to come to the text with a system to which it must be conformed, and to extract any scripture and make it mean what the person’s beliefs dictate. There are countless verses one could do this with – and many clever men have – to arrive at absurd, contradictory and morally reprehensible statements.
What rh never seems to grasp, along with other Calvinists I know well, is that every scripture they hold up as ‘proving’ their point is simply their interpretation of that scripture. If they honestly acknowledged that, along with the fact that there are existing alternative interpretations that good and godly men propose, then one could actually begin to have a productive conversation.
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism man does not determine/plan his own way Calvin’s god does.”
In Calvinism, God uses man’s desires to accomplish His purposes. It is God who enforced His decree to Adam by taking Adam’s corruption and imposing it on all born to Adam. Thus, no one is born with faith and can only receive faith through hearing the gospel and no one is good as each has a heart that is “deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” Even br.d cannot deny these things. br.d will say, “No need for me to say once again – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel!” but he never is able to explain how this occurs.
rhutchin
It is God who enNFORCED His decree to Adam
br.d
Thank you for answering my previous question on whether or not Calvin’s god’s decree is FORCE-LESS.
But I know the SEMANTIC trick – Calvin’s god uses a FORCE that FORCES without FORCING
Leave it to a Calvinist to call DOUBLE-THINK rational – what a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
by taking Adam’s corruption and imposing it on all born to Adam
br.d
We already know what you’re trying to HIDE in this statement
Calvin’s god imposes an attribute on Adam in order to impose it on all born to Adam.
Like Calvinism imposes DOUBLE-THINK on all scripture :-]
rhutchin: “…by taking Adam’s corruption and imposing it on all born to Adam”
br.d: “Calvin’s god imposes an attribute on Adam in order to impose it on all born to Adam.”
God had decreed that Adam’s sinful nature would be inherited by his descendants. God imposed this on Adam and his descendants because of Adam’s sin. Thus, no one is born with faith and can only receive faith through hearing the gospel and no one is good as each has a heart that is “deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;”
rhutchin
God had decreed that Adam’s sinful nature would be inherited by his descendants.
br.d
No one here is fooled by this language – we understand what it is DESIGNED to HIDE
Calvin’s god DECREED every aspect of Adam’s every attribute – whatever attribute you want to point to.
rhutchin
God imposed this on Adam and his descendants because of Adam’s sin.
brd
No one here is fooled by this language – we understand what it is DESIGNED to HIDE
Calvin’s god imposed attribute [X] (whatever attribute you want to point to) on Adam – so that he could then impose similar attributes on Adam’s descendents.
Calvin’s god could didn’t need Adam to do that – he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by simply imposing it on everyone from the start.
rhutchin
Thus, no one is born with faith and can only receive faith through hearing the gospel and no one is good as each has a heart that is “deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;”
br.d
*AS-IF* man is the determiner of ANYTHING – including any of the attributes Calvin’s god DESIGNS man to have.
Thanks rhutchin – excellent examples of Calvinism *AS-IF* thinking patter!
If Calvinists didn’t have DOUBLE-THINK – its questionable they could think at all? :-]
rhutchin
br.d will say, “No need for me to say once again – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel!” but he never is able to explain how this occurs.
br.d
Trying to explain RATIONAL to a Calvinist is like trying to explain sober to a drunk. :-]
rhutchin: “br.d will say, “No need for me to say once again – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel!” but he never is able to explain how this occurs.”
br.d: “Trying to explain RATIONAL to a Calvinist is like trying to explain sober to a drunk. ”
br.d knows better than to attempt an explanation of something he is not able to explain. Thus, br.d will say, “No need for me to say once again – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel!” but he never is able to explain how this occurs.
sorry rhutchin – no one here is fooled by that “you can’t explain it” ruse.
rhutchin: “br.d knows better than to attempt an explanation of something he is not able to explain. Thus, br.d will say, “No need for me to say once again – Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel!” but he never is able to explain how this occurs.”
br.d: “no one here is fooled by that “you can’t explain it” ruse.”
In other words, br.d cannot back up his claim that “Calvinism contorts scripture into an IRRATIONAL pretzel!” I don’t see why anyone would be fooled by your ruse (despite your false attribution to me of your failure)..
Now you’re just chasing your own tail again.
And as I’ve always said – you don’t need any help doing that. :-]
Dr Ronnie Rogers a former Calvinist for 23 years writes:
“…within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call double-talk. By the use of this term, I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time of being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do so out of ill motive, intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the Scripture—nor do I so impugn my Calvinist brothers and sisters.
As a matter of fact, upon reflection, I did it because I believed in Calvinism, and the Scripture; this brought about conflicts that required unconscious or at least unthoughtful responses to the conflicts, which I now see as double-talk. This double-talk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism; what I have now come to describe as disquieting realities of Calvinism. Either there was an unconsciousness of the serious gap between Calvinism and the simple reading of Scripture, or I was simply unwilling to face these disparities directly. At times, a lack of thoughtfulness may have been easier than embarking on the quite disconcerting and uncertain journey that I have been on for the past thirteen years. Additionally, I did not have the knowledge and ability to see them as clearly then as I do now.
By double-talk, I am referring to the inconsistencies between the irreducible tenets and logic of Calvinism, and the speech, writings, prayers, etc., of many Calvinists. This is particularly pronounced in areas like missions, prayers, preaching, and written and spoken comments that seem to ameliorate or soften the harsh realities of Calvinism.” End Quote
Notice the reason Dr Ronnie did this double talk was because he held two things in on hand the Bible in the other hand Calvin and he was trying to make the two say the same thing. Which of course they don’t..
GraceAdict weirs, “Dr Ronnie Rogers a former Calvinist for 23 years writes: …”
I read Rogers book and found it confusing – I found it difficult to distill anything of substance from it. Guess I’ll go back and see if it makes more sense now.
Notice the reason Dr Ronnie did this double talk was because he held two things in on hand the Bible in the other hand Calvin and he was trying to make the two say the same thing. Which of course they don’t..
br.d
Nice quote GraceAdict!
Unfortunate to knowledge – one may consider himself very fortunate to come across a Calvinist who is that honest.
Dr. Flowers has posted a nice video on Sovereignty it is short and useful…Many thanks
Thanks GraceAdict – can you post the link?
Here is Dr Flowers link to the video on Sovereignty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJMenYqls
Nice! Thanks GraceAdict :-]
1st TIMOTHY 2.4 – AND CALVINISM’S TWO GROUPS OF ALL MEN
(New Article by br.d)
https://soteriology101.com/2017/05/20/you-dont-understand-calvinism/#comment-41997
So True BR.D.
The Calvi-god hates the ALL MEN in one group even before He created them. These are ALL hated by God first, that is why they too hate God back (plus the Calvi-god irresistibly makes them in such a way so that they can do nothing but REJECT God)
The Calvi-god makes them into haters of Himself so that the Calvi-god “can be seen” as Just for damning them and blaming them for not believing the Gospel, (which was never truly extended to them, as seen in limited atonement).
The Calvinist truly has a “Hitler-like-god” that he tries to hide from others and even from himself. If the Calvinist were to contemplate his own systematic with honest reflection he would see that he has turned the Glorious God of the Scriptures into a “Hitler-Beast” and Satan loves it and even helps him in his endeavor. For there is nothing that Satan loves more than to malign the Holy, Loving and Good Character of God. Calvinism is a tool in Satan’s tool box…Now most Calvinists don’t realize how they are being used by the devil but they are. Yes ignorantly, but effectively maligning and profaning the Character of God…this does NOT glorify God.
We can only Glorify God when we speak accurately about God. Calvinism does NOT speak accurately about God !!!
GraceAdict writes, “The Calvi-god hates the ALL MEN in one group even before He created them.”
GA’s issue is that Calvinists say that people are born without faith (thus, they hate God) but GA says that people are born with faith (thus, do not hate God). GA does not deny this. GA also seems to have issues with Calvinists saying that God is omniscient and knew who would be saved and lost before He created he universe.
GraceAdict
“The Calvi-god hates the ALL MEN in one group even before He created them.”
rhutchin
GA’s issue is that Calvinists say that people are born without faith…….etc
br.d
Thinking that by simply repeating the same fallacy over and over it will somehow magically become true.
What age demographic does that type of thinking fit into?
br.d writes, ‘Thinking that by simply repeating the same fallacy over and over it will somehow magically become true.”
It is true because it is relevant to the discussion and GA does not deny it. Why should he? People without faith hate God as Paul explains in Romans 8. GA has not figured out how people can be born with faith, so he cannot support his view. Your presumption of a fallacy is just that; presumption – you made it up.
br.d
Thinking that by simply repeating the same fallacy over and over it will somehow magically become true.
What age demographic does that type of thinking fit into?
rhutchin
It is true because it is relevant to the discussion and GA does not deny it. Why should he? People without faith hate God as Paul explains in Romans 8. GA has not figured out how people can be born with faith, so he cannot support his view. Your presumption of a fallacy is just that; presumption – you made it up.
br.d
Fine keep on with it – if you put your trust in that thinking pattern.
But as I said – it does reveal a thinking pattern of a certain age demographic
I guess it makes sense – that age demographic would not be mature enough to discern that.
When I was a child – I thought as a child.
Oh well – life goes on.
br.d writes, “Fine keep on with it – if you put your trust in that thinking pattern.”
Any thinking pattern that is derived from the Scriptures is good. Maybe you should try it and stop thinking like a child. As Paul said, “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches,…”
br.d
“Fine keep on with it – if you put your trust in that thinking pattern.”
rhutchin
Any thinking pattern that is derived from the Scriptures is good…….etc
br.d
Fine – if one wants to auto-magically assume IRRATIONAL thinking patterns are derived from Scripture.
Dr. Flowers has a good article addressing this:
IS INCOHERENCE BIBLICAL
https://soteriology101.com/2019/05/07/can-incoherence-be-biblical/
br.d writes, “Fine – if one wants to auto-magically assume IRRATIONAL thinking patterns are derived from Scripture.”
Rational thinking patterns are derived from Scripture.
br.d
Fine – if one wants to auto-magically assume IRRATIONAL thinking patterns are derived from Scripture.”
rhutchin
Rational thinking patterns are derived from Scripture.
br.d
Very good!
And secondly – IRRATIONAL thinking patterns will result in IRRATIONAL interpretations of any data.
Including the data Scripture.
When we see IRRATIONAL thinking patterns – we can anticipate IRRATIONAL interpretations.
RH seems to be confirming that his god is “Hitler-like” even worse because everything Hitler did originated with the Calvi-god.
Now regarding Faith I have already addressed this:
We have discussed how faith does NOT save it is the OBJECT of ones faith. Faith in Jesus and Him crucified for your sins is THE ONE and Only way to be saved. (God makes that available to ALL the MANY included)
The unsaved have faith but it is placed in the WRONG Object such as idols, personal good deeds, the idea that I am the elect, therefore I must be saved. Faith in the wrong object lands you in Hell.
I have already argued this with you showing you scriptures where “Faith in a lie” vs “Faith in the Truth” exists in scripture.
Now you will argue well that is a “different kind of faith” but scripture uses the same greek word for faith in lie as it does for faith in the truth. You simply ignore that.
The OBJECT of ones Faith is the important thing.
Faith in a LIE = Damnation
Faith in the TRUTH = Salvation
Lets establish first that the Greek word for Believe and Faith are virtually identical. The only difference is that Believe is the verb form and Faith is the Noun form of the exact same root word.
For instance “if you have faith” you “are believing”.
So what is true about “believe” is also true about “faith”.
We are going to use bible verses that use the exact same greek form of the word – believe ( πιστεύω )
I will show how * πιστεύω * is used in relationship to:
1. believing a LIE — * πιστεύω * a lie
2. believing the TRUTH… * πιστεύω * the Truth.
It will become obvious that it is not the absence of * πιστεύω * that makes the difference but the OBJECT in focus that makes the difference.
*πιστεύω* when Christ and the gospel are the OBJECT what do we have? Salvation!!
Joh 3:15 that whoever BELIEVES in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever BELIEVES in him is not condemned,
*πιστεύω* can be directed to a lie so a warning is given. One Can BELIEVE a lie, be warned.
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, BELIEVE not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
a warning to not *πιστεύω* in a false christ… the absence of *πιστεύω* is NOT the issue…but the focus of *πιστεύω* IS.
Mat 24:23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not BELIEVE it.
Mat 24:26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not BELIEVE it.
The possibility of having *πιστεύω* in a false Christ is very real. Not the absence of *πιστεύω* but instead being placed in the wrong OBJECT.
*πιστεύω* can be placed in LIE. But the same *πιστεύω* could have been placed in the Truth resulting in Salvation.
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should BELIEVE a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who BELIEVED not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
NOTICE it is NOT the absence of *πιστεύω* but the focus of *πιστεύω* or to state it another way, the OBJECT of *πιστεύω*
Also *πιστεύω* is a choice that you choose to believe or not to believe a truth or set of truths. See below it is a choice.
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I WILL NOT BELIEVE.
Luk 22:67 “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you WILL NOT BELIEVE,
This goes for all of us…we can choose NOT to believe the TRUTH and instead place our faith in a lie. Or believe a lie.
It really is up to you… the question is not “Do you have faith?” BUT INSTEAD -What are you going to place your FAITH in?
You already have faith it is part of being God’s creation…He made us with that ability, yes, it is a gift of God just like breathing is, just like your very life is a gift. The question is what are you going to choose to BELIEVE? It really is your choice.
Believe a lie = Damnation
Believe the Truth = Salvation
Your choice.
GraceAdict writes, “You already have faith it is part of being God’s creation…He made us with that ability, yes, it is a gift of God just like breathing is, just like your very life is a gift. ”
True, or saving, faith comes from hearing the gospel. Paul explains this in Romans 10, “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
We know, from Hebrews 11, that faith is assurance and conviction derived from the Scriptures (i.e., the gospel). It is not something one is born with but an assurance and conviction a person receives upon hearing the gospel without which there can be no saving faith.
rhutchin
We know, from Hebrews 11, that faith is assurance and conviction derived from the Scriptures (i.e., the gospel). It is not something one is born with….etc
br.d
Babies cry when they have a need because God gave them the faith to believe their mother would tend to their need.
Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
br.d writes, “Babies cry when they have a need because God gave them the faith to believe their mother would tend to their need.”
A baby is completely dependent on its mother and is satisfied through the faith God gives him. In the same way, the Holy Spirit leads God’s elect to recognize their dependence on God that is satisfied through the faith God gives them. Until a person recognizes his dependence on God for salvation as a baby is dependent on its mother, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
br.d
Babies cry when they have a need because God gave them the faith to believe their mother would tend to their need.”
rhutchin
A baby is completely dependent on its mother and is satisfied through the faith God gives him.
br.d
Therefore faith is an attribute the baby is born with.
rhutchin
In the same way, the Holy Spirit leads God’s elect to recognize their dependence on God that is satisfied through the faith God gives them.
br.d
More precisely – the attribute of faith already designed into each person’s DNA which exists at birth – is re-directed away from idols and vain things – towards the OBJECT of the living God – the Lord Jesus Christ and his work on the cross.
rhutchin: “A baby is completely dependent on its mother and is satisfied through the faith God gives him.”
br.d: “Therefore faith is an attribute the baby is born with.”
Yes. God gives babies faith at birth but any source of milk will do as the baby is not discriminating when it comes to .satisfying its hunger.
Then, “the attribute of faith already designed into each person’s”
Maybe, better to call it the attribute of selfishness. However, if you want to say that “faith” is redirected from idols to Christ, that is fine. The redirection from idols to Christ is accomplished by God through the hearing of the gospel. A person is not born with faith in Christ.
rhutchin: “A baby is completely dependent on its mother and is satisfied through the faith God gives him.”
br.d:
Therefore faith is an attribute the baby is born with – Designed into the human DNA
rhutchin:
Yes. God gives babies faith at birth
br.d
More precisely the attribute of faith is DESIGNED into the human DNA – and thus exists at birth.
rhutchin:
but any source of milk will do as the baby is not discriminating when it comes to .satisfying its hunger.
br.d
And as Jesus said – you must become like little children to enter into the kingdom of heaven
Which means TRUST – which is exactly what faith is.
rhutchin
Maybe, better to call it the attribute of selfishness.
br.d
Yes if one wants to commit the fallacy of false-dichotomy.
Otherwise – wisdom tells us that humans are designed with multiple attributes.
One of which is selfishness.
rhutchin
However, if you want to say that “faith” is redirected from idols to Christ, that is fine. The redirection from idols to Christ is accomplished by God through the hearing of the gospel. A person is not born with faith in Christ.
br.d
More precisely – one is not born with Christ as the OBJECT of one’s faith.
Since it is a LOGICAL impossibility to have faith in something one has no perception of – each person has to be presented with that information.
br.d writes, ‘More precisely – one is not born with Christ as the OBJECT of one’s faith.
Since it is a LOGICAL impossibility to have faith in something one has no perception of – each person has to be presented with that information.”
As John 6 tells us, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.”
rhutchin
As John 6 tells us, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.”
br.d
Another great reason not to conflate Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture.
But that verse is LOGICALLY coherent in an IN-deterministic world – now isn’t it.
In Theological Determinism – humans don’t really “learn” anything – since Calvin’s god simply determines every perception. Technically that is not “learning” – but rather having one’s perceptions modulated.
And secondly Calvin’s god determines people to have FALSE perceptions as well as TRUE perceptions – and only Calvin’s god knows whether a perception he has given you is TRUE or FALSE. So to call that “learning” is a misnomer.
rhutchin: “As John 6 tells us, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.”
br.d: “In Theological Determinism – humans don’t really “learn” anything – since Calvin’s god simply determines every perception. Technically that is not “learning” – but rather having one’s perceptions modulated.”
In Calvinism, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.,” just like John 6 tells us.
br.d
In Theological Determinism – humans don’t really “learn” anything – since Calvin’s god simply determines every perception. Technically that is not “learning” – but rather having one’s perceptions modulated.
On top of that Calvin’s god determines Calvinists to have FALSE perceptions as well as TRUE perceptions and only Calvin’s god knows whether or not those perceptions are TRUE or FALSE. So calling that “learning” is a misnomer.
rhutchin
In Calvinism, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.,” just like John 6 tells us.
br.d
This is all so simple.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things exclusively – and nothing is left UN-determined – therefore nothing is left for the Calvinist brain to determine.
Obviously that includes the every perception Calvin’s god determines to appear in the Calvinist’s brain.
So far Calvin’s god has given you 4 FALSE perceptions – making your brain perceive them as TRUE.
Good luck calling perceptions you cant discern as TRUE or FALSE “learning”. :-]
br.d: “In Theological Determinism – humans don’t really “learn” anything – since Calvin’s god simply determines every perception. Technically that is not “learning” – but rather having one’s perceptions modulated.”
rhutchin: “In Calvinism, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.,” just like John 6 tells us.”
br.d: “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things exclusively – and nothing is left UN-determined – therefore nothing is left for the Calvinist brain to determine.”
br.d affirms Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” in saying, “the THEOS determines *ALL* things exclusively – and nothing is left UN-determined.” The means by which God determines some things is explained in John 6, ““everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.,”
br.d is not disagreeing with the Calvinists on the meaning of these verses as they are clear enough for him to understand.
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things exclusively – and nothing is left UN-determined – therefore nothing is left for the Calvinist brain to determine.”
Additionally in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the human mind doesn’t actually “learn” anything because Calvin’s god determines all human perceptions and only he knows if the perceptions he’s determined the human to have are TRUE or FALSE. And Calvin’s god determines humans to have FALSE perceptions – making they perceive those as TRUE. And to call that process “learning” is simply FALSE.
rhutchin
br.d affirms Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” in saying, “the THEOS determines *ALL* things exclusively – and nothing is left UN-determined.” The means by which God determines some things is explained in John 6, ““everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.,”
br.d
AH! This will be FALSE perception #5 for rhutchin.
Here Calvin’s god has determined rhutcnin to have another FALSE perception concerning br.d
rhutchin
br.d is not disagreeing with the Calvinists on the meaning of these verses as they are clear enough for him to understand.
br.d
And this will be FALSE perception #6 for rhutchin
Since we’ve started to count the FALSE perceptions Calvin’s god determines you to have – this will be become valuable evidence. Well – perhaps not for you – because your perceptions regarding your FALSE perceptions are probably also going to be FALSE. But its valuable evidence for SOT101 readers.
br.d
As I have stated – many of the verses you’ve quoted of late are LOGICALLY coherent with IN-determinism . And LOGICALLY problematic with Determinism. You’re response is to simply MAKE-BELIEVE no LOGICAL problem exists in the face of those LOGICAL problems.
But that is just another way of having a FALSE perception – now isn’t it! :-]
br.d writes:
“As I have stated – many of the verses you’ve quoted of late are LOGICALLY coherent with IN-determinism . And LOGICALLY problematic with Determinism. You’re response is to simply MAKE-BELIEVE no LOGICAL problem exists in the face of those LOGICAL problems.”
Exactly the point I was attempting to make. rh will make a statement that, while scriptural, and upheld by non-determinists, is completely contradictory or logically impossible under Calvinism. Yet he either does not get this, or pretends to not get this, glibly retorting that since this is what scripture says this is what Calvinism affirms.
Is this not the essence of what you point out to him day after day? The Calvinist holds to a system which he must constantly contradict – while pretending as if this is not so – because it simply does not align with scripture. This is what is so often called doublethink, doublespeak, twisting scriptures, logical contradictions, etc. Yet rh follows this pattern again and again, oblivious that those observing recognize the contradictions between the scriptures he claims to believe and what Calvinism allows.
TS00 ,
This thing (below) happened so many times with me that I finally told myself that either his reasoning ability is off or he is doing this king of glib (in your face/ missed the point) answer on purpose.
“…. is completely contradictory or logically impossible under Calvinism. Yet he either does not get this, or pretends to not get this, glibly retorting that since this is what scripture says this is what Calvinism affirms.”
Many many times he will actually quote a verse that is the quintessential verse disproving one of his tenets. And that without a smile or batting an eye. And NEVER, NEVER have I seen him say “oh, I see your point” or ” I can see how you would understand those 975 verses to mean that, but I humbly offer that they mean….”
Nah…..just pull out Eph 1:11 and John 6:44 at any and all occasions….and they will fix all 975 verses (certainly as long as you hold his interpretation of those two verses!).
FOH
Nah…..just pull out Eph 1:11 and John 6:44 at any and all occasions….and they will fix all 975 verses (certainly as long as you hold his interpretation of those two verses!).
br.d
Yes exactly!
And have you noticed the Calvinists (at least here) are loath to present Calvinism as a Tradition of interpretation?
When one disagrees with their interpretation – they accuse one of rejecting/denying scripture.
How childish is that!
br.d
“Yes exactly!
And have you noticed the Calvinists (at least here) are loath to present Calvinism as a Tradition of interpretation?
When one disagrees with their interpretation – they accuse one of rejecting/denying scripture.
How childish is that!”
This is, in my experience, how Calvinists are trained to think. I always start there, because until a person acknowledges thst you hold and are discussing differing interpretations , there cannot be productive conversation.
The minute someone pulls out the ‘scripture clearly teaches’ card, I know it’s time to throw in the towel. They are so convinced of their rightness that they cannot objectively perceive various interpretations and consider them with any degree of honesty.
Yes I agree – I remember a very wise man tell me – its one thing to quote the text verbatim – but when someone claims “what the scripture teaches” you’re alarm bells should be going off.
All to often – the later is simply the byproduct of READING something into the text that isn’t there.
This reminds me of Jesus and the Lawyer who tempted him.
Jesus asked him 2 questions.
1) What does scripture say?
2) How do you read it?
The Lawyer didn’t have any problem answering first question.
But he evaded the second one.
Instead he started arguing over the definition of a term in the text – “neighbor”.
And that is why Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan.
An example of how Jesus used LOGIC to answer someone who was playing word games with scripture!
Alas, those who are dogmatic in their certainty think that only others misunderstand or seek to wriggle out of the true meaning of scripture. They are convinced that their interpretation is the correct one, and any who disagree just don’t want to obey God. At least, that is what I have found to be the case. One simply cannot get through to them that groups of words do not magically convey meaning on their own. Communication always involves hermeneutics, examining context, honestly challenging preconceptions, studying words for various historical meanings, and furrowing out the many subconscious factors that dictate how a particular set of words is understood.
Many naive, if sincere, believers have been trained to believe that ‘truth’ can be easily ascertained, and the problem is simply that most people do not love the truth. This may indeed happen in some cases, but – if I understand it correctly, 😉 – scripture does warn us that we are under constant assault by a clever enemy who seeks to deceive and destroy us. We must take this warning seriously, and be open to discovering that long held beliefs may be inaccurate.
If we can hold to our understanding humbly and with an open, honest, teachable spirit, I believe we can not only continue to grow in understanding but be gracious and profit from interactions even with people who hold far different views than do we.
Yes – I agree – well said TS00!
TS00
This is what is so often called doublethink, doublespeak, twisting scriptures, logical contradictions, etc. Yet rh follows this pattern again and again, oblivious that those observing recognize the contradictions between the scriptures he claims to believe and what Calvinism allows
br.d
Well said TS00!
I think rhutchin’s testimony in this regard really helps SOT101 readers to see how much DOUBLE-SPEAK there is in Calvinism.
But in the mean time – we get the blessing of a constant stream of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK.
I know how that gets old real fast!
But the Lord is able to use it for the good for those who love him.
Thank you Jesus for SOT101! :-]
rhutchin
I think JTL would say that God did not express the full extent of His love for His elect until He brought them to salvation. God did express His love to them by preserving their lives until He saved them.
br.d
I think you’re trying to modulate JT’s posts here – perhaps to minimize the specter of Calvinists having disagreements with each other.
If you read his posts he has explicitly stated Calvin’s god does not love his enemies – only the church.
And for a Calvinist that would be the INVISIBLE church.
However most Calvinists all assume they are elect – even if they don’t know that to be the case.
RH quotes Romans 10 which makes my point perfectly…the person starts off without knowing the gospel so he cannot place his faith in the gospel. His faith is in idols or something else… He must hear a new message to transfer his faith from idols to the Christ of the Gospel.
NOTICE berlow this is true here turning from one OBJECT to Another:
1Th 1:9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,
ROMANS 10
And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
One must hear the NEW message in order to move from believing a lie to believing the TRUTH. The object of Faith changes.
GraceAdict writes, “RH quotes Romans 10 which makes my point perfectly…the person starts off without knowing the gospel so he cannot place his faith in the gospel. ”
Paul writes, “…faith comes by hearing, and hearing [comes] by the word of God.” When Paul writes, “…faith comes…” he means a saving faith that the person did not have prior to hearing the gospel..
Then, ‘One must hear the NEW message in order to move from believing a lie to believing the TRUTH. The object of Faith changes.”
The object of faith does not change. Faith itself changes from a human derived faith to a God derived faith. It was the faith received through hearing the gospel that enabled the Thessalonians to turn from their idols. The faith that the Scriptures speak about is given to a person by God and until God gives the person such faith, the person will not believe.
If you want to say that it is faith in Jesus Christ that saves a person, that is fine. Faith in Christ cannot exist absent the gospel.
rhutchin
The object of faith does not change. Faith itself changes from a human derived faith to a God derived faith.
br.d
FALSE
Since the attribute of faith is designed into humans and is part of the human DNA – and since humans do not have the ability to create themselves – there is no such thing as a human derived faith.
And on top of that – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a human derived anything – since everything is expressly the byproduct of Calvin’s god’s DECREES.
Everything the DECREE establishes is derived from Calvin’s god.
So the whole business of anything being human derived is simply more Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK.
br.d writes, “in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a human derived anything – since everything is expressly the byproduct of Calvin’s god’s DECREES.”
In Calvinism, James is true: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”
Then, “So the whole business of anything being human derived is simply more Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK.”
And consistent with James.
br.d
in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a human derived anything – since everything is expressly the byproduct of Calvin’s god’s DECREES.
rhutchin
In Calvinism, James is true: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”
br.d
Firstly:
The verse you quote is LOGICALLY coherent in an IN-deterministic world
So as always – it is a silly mistake to conflate scripture with Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism).
Secondly:
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) ALL THINGS that are brought into existence are FIRST-CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god’s mind. He is the AUTHOR/SOURCE/ORIGIN of everything.
So the whole business of anything being human derived is simply more Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK.”
rhutchin
And consistent with James.
br.d
I don’t conflate James with Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism).
It would make the Holy Spirit look like he doesn’t know how to clearly communicate.
And in order to understand – one must get the SECRET meaning – which can only be decoded using John Calvin’s magic decoder ring :-]
br.d writes, ‘The verse you quote is LOGICALLY coherent in an IN-deterministic world…”
In Calvinism, James is true: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”
br.d
The verse you quote is LOGICALLY coherent in an IN-deterministic world now isn’t it!
rhutchin
In Calvinism, James is true: ……etc
br.d
Now rhutchin you must remember – as a Theological Determinist Calvin’s god determines *ALL* – and that of course includes determining every perception that will appear in your brain.
So its not up to you to determine whether X is TRUE or FALSE.
However, you can legitimately say Calvin’s god gave you the perception that X is TRUE.
Another problem with Calvinism and it’s determinism is that it makes the Inspiration of the Scriptures meaningless. Under Calvinism if an Event (E) happened that is proof positive that it was God’s Desired and perfect will and that it came from Him. (Piper-White-Calvin)
So WHATEVER has been written is therefore Inspired by God other wise it would never have been written,
Since only what qualifies as God’s Desired Will is Allowed to happen.
It makes sense to me that is why so much that is written by Calvinist Authors Contradicts God’s Actual Word but they feel no shame. WHY do they feel no shame? BECAUSE the thinking is: “Since I wrote it and it came out in a book it must be exactly what God wanted written” (Inspired) That is why they can quote from Calvin, their favorite Reformers as if it was as important or as valuable as scripture and in the end they become more important than the Word itself because those writings redefine what scripture is saying. In the end Calvin, Piper, JMac, Grudem and their writtings are placed Above the scriptures they tell you what you must think even though it contradicts Scripture…Just remember “Mystery, Paradox, and Tension” and you will swallow any lie.
In a very real sense everything is Inspired by the Calvi-god. So they read their (Inspired Authors) with the conviction it is Directly from God or it would NEVER have been Allowed to happen. There is no difference in the end between the Inspiration of Scripture and the Inspiration of Calvin or the Inspiration of Piper. So they proceed with great confidence.
Just like a Calvinist tried to convince me the sin he had been involved in was exactly what God planned for his life to glorify God. It did NOT matter that he had made his wife and children suffer incredibly. It was ALL God’s perfect and glorious plan and much of it still a mystery.
Those who actually live out Calvinism cause incredible harm to people around them. Yet they themselves feel good because they rationalize:
“I couldn’t have done otherwise, this is exactly what God planned for me for His glory.(who could resist the will of God?) I can’t explain it, it is mystery but it is true, my sin is exactly what God wanted and I had no real choice to do otherwise so just embrace that reality and if you were the victim who was harmed by it tough luck, God made it happen? ”
Now I am grateful that many who call themselves Calvinists and who will argue for Calvinism actually live in a (Freewill manner ) but the consistent Calvinist is a terrible reality and a plague to the church…he will likely do the equivalent of burning people at the stake and say or at least think “it was all God’s mysterious plan for His glory”…the fact that said Event happened is proof that God wanted me do this burning, Glory be to God.
Since Calvinism has been on the rise for about 15-20 years now and the movement in North America is maturing the implications of Determinism are being lived out with greater and greater consistency. As this movement matures I am seeing more and more hideous acts of men in the church being blamed on God and His mysterious will. Yes they still call it sin but right along side that they are saying it happened for the Glory of God and He is the Sovereign who brought it to pass. This is a hideous doctrine. Especially when lived out Consistently by those calling themselves Christians.
Even though most who hold to Calvinism do not know it, I firmly believe that Calvinism’s subtle tactics are described in the Bible and “by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.” Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”
When you examine their subtle tactics it is obvious there is something dark behind the system.
GA,
Up till the last paragraph on this good long post you sounded exactly like me! I am grateful that you came along as I have not been posting much lately (sorry friends!). I have entered a pretty busy time of life, and quite frankly I feel like I had said and re-said (and shown from Scripture) what I can say!
Your last paragraph sounds like TS00 (bless his heart!) in that Calvinism is a sort of dark conspiracy. That is where I disagree. I just spent the week-end with a fellow missionary couple who describe themselves as “Calvinist” (Calvinist seminary, PCA denomination).
First of all there is no guile whatsoever in this couple. And certainly no conspiracy!
Second of all (as you clearly stated in your post) they DO NOT in ANY WAY live like Calvinism/ determinism is true. You would never, ever, ever decipher from them that they are determinists.
Humorously, I even heard him says (while many voices were talking in one room) “God certainly did not ordain those actions.”
Of course that contradicts Calvinism and determinism since they teach that there are NO actions that God did not ordain.
But we all understand how it goes: Theologize list a Calvinist and live like an Arminian!
I wanted so badly to post yesterday from my daily reading. Every day I have a section from the OT, NT, Psalms, and a short Proverb. Yesterday, grand slam!!! All four sections were direct refutation of Calvinism.
As I have said many times: What got me out of Calvinism was just reading huge sections of the Scripture and letting it speak plainly. There is no reason or need to filter 99.9% of the Bible through a couple of Calvinist-interpreted filter verses (rendering all the rest of the Bible as meaningless).
Anyway, well said GA. Keep it up.
FOH Thanks for your comments.
That last paragraph I did start it with “Even though most who hold to Calvinism do not know it…”
I will try and clarify my stance…
I too make a difference between: a.) those who are deceived by the system and b.) the system itself and those who put it together…I believe in the past there were definite deceptive forces at work even satanic…because error does not proceed from God and this much error has to come from darkness. The Calvinist system is sooo full of error including the errors that assault the moral character of God. Namely His Holiness, His Love, His Grace, His Truthfulness…it could not have come from the LIGHT…that is why I say there is something dark behind the system…
Here is how I have stated it in the past:
1. I hate the system – because it is full of lies, those who love the truth must hate that which would destroy and distort the truth.
2. I have compassion on those who are deceived by the lies…many are (sincere but deceived)
3. I do oppose the spread of those lies.
What I meant is today those who are Calvinist don’t know the level of deception that they have been led into at the same time “it is obvious there is something dark behind the system.”
The system is twisted and does have lots of things in the system that profanes the Holy name of God. Are there nice people caught in the system? absolutely. We lived beside a Catholic couple…they were the best neighbors we could have ever asked for they were nice and sincere but deceived…we love the couple…but hate the deceptive system that holds them in the grips of it’s deception…
wonderful post FOH!
And yes – you’ve been missed!
But all things as the Lord blesses you :-]
GraceAdict writes, “Under Calvinism if an Event (E) happened that is proof positive that it was God’s Desired and perfect will and that it came from Him. (Piper-White-Calvin) ”
All events are known to God before they happen and God has both the power and the authority to prevent ant event that happens. For any event to occur God had to consider the event and decide if it accorded with His purpose and plan. Only then does the event proceed. If you do not think this is what happens, then how about explaining what you think happens.
RH assumes God DESPERATELY NEEDS EVIL in order to be Glorified that is why the Calvi-god Causes Evil to happen without being the author if it. Wink wink.
Also under Calvinism God loses His Throne of Sovereignty and His Godhead status if man has the freedom to make even one real choice. Under the Calvinists paradigm an authentic human choice is making man Sovereign and God is Not Sovereign anymore.
We would however agree with A.W. Tozer:
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” End Quote
A.W. Tozer’s definition would make scripture totally meaningful and it would NOT profane the Holy name of God it would maintain the Holiness of God while at the same time maintaining the Sovereignty of God which Calvinism cannot do… see scriptures below:
1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Pro 6:16 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him:
Pro 6:17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
Pro 6:19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Isa 5:20-21 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
The systematic called Calvinism puts darkness for light, it puts bitter for sweet, it calls evil God’s doing declaring it glorifies God.
Determinism necessarily leads to God the Author of Evil.
Wonderful post GraceAdict!
Yes – I believe there are two foundational elements in Augustine’s doctrine.
1) Determinism
2) “Good-Evil” Dualism – where good and evil are co-equal, co-necessary, and co-complimentary.
The determinism part is antithetical to the human’s every-day experience in life. And the human’s every-day experiences in life is reflected within the general narrative of scripture.
The “Good-Evil” Dualism part is typically that element that prompts main-stream Christians to find Calvinism problematic. But not knowing what it actually is – they can’t put their finger on why they have a problem with.
The Calvinist defense is to accuse them of resisting divine sovereignty. If that defense is effective – that person may be inclined to accept Calvinism’s “Good-Evil” Dualism. If so – a major barrier has been overcome. The person is lead to believe accepting a “Good-Evil” THEOS is biblical. When in fact what one is embracing is Gnosticism.
GA, I absolutely agree. The consistent Calvinist is the most abhorrent of all Pharisees. Thankfully, they are few; unfortunately, they are clever. The naive are almost totally under their power, having been persuaded that they are their rightful ‘God-given authorities’. This is where so much harm comes in. The ignorant and naive, and often well-meaning, fall under the sway of the darkness of that which underlies this destructive theology.
br.d: “The verse you quote is LOGICALLY coherent in an IN-deterministic world now isn’t it!”
rhutchin: “In Calvinism, James is true: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”
br.d: “So its not up to you to determine whether X is TRUE or FALSE. However, you can legitimately say Calvin’s god gave you the perception that X is TRUE.”
We know that the Scriptures are true and do not have to prove them true. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
br.d:
Then, “So the whole business of anything being human derived is simply more Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK.”
rh:
And consistent with James.
For some reason, rh does not appear to recognize that br.d is not saying that the Calvinist’s double-think is incorrect or unscriptural – it is simply inconsistent with Calvinism. Br.d does not disagree with James, he simply seeks to point out how when the Calvinist attempts to comply with scripture and reality, he unavoidably contradicts his own theology.
TS00 writes, “Br.d does not disagree with James, he simply seeks to point out how when the Calvinist attempts to comply with scripture and reality, he unavoidably contradicts his own theology.”
Calvinist Theology agrees with the Scriptures – the Scriptures are true – and Calvinist theology is consistent with the Scriptures.
br.d said, “in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a human derived anything – since everything is expressly the byproduct of Calvin’s god’s DECREES.”
This is a wrong conclusion. God decrees everything and decrees various means to accomplish His purposes. One of these decrees is specified in James – “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin;”
We know that a person is born without faith and that his sin nature gives rise to those desires that lead to sin and death. God understands all this and by not changing either the sin nature or the desires it generates, God decreed both. However, James is still true and accurately describes the events that unfold wherein God does not tempt anyone.
rhutchin
br.d said, “in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a human derived anything – since everything is expressly the byproduct of Calvin’s god’s DECREES.”
This is a wrong conclusion. God decrees everything and decrees various means to accomplish His purposes.
br.d
Everyone who knows anything about CAUSE and EFFECT knows – the EFFECT does not derive itself – but is derived from the CAUSE.
But we know your thinking on this:
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
One can MAKE-BELIEVE that thinking is RATIONAL – in order to make it not conflict with scripture
While others recognize it as DOUBLE-THINK! :-]
And Calvinists examples of DOUBLE-THINK is what makes SOT101 beneficial! :-]
rhutchin
All events are known to God before they happen and God has both the power and the authority to prevent ant event that happens. For any event to occur God had to consider the event and decide if it accorded with His purpose and plan
br.d
Since NO EVENT CAN HAPPEN without Calvin’s god DECREEING it into existence – If after having DECREED it into existence – Calvin’s god doesn’t know it will happen – then perhaps his brain is a few french fries short of a Happy-Meal.
But yes – PRIOR to DECREEING [X] – it LOGICALLY follows he decide [X] accords with his purpose and plan.
But it is wisdom to remember – understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
Rh writes:
“Calvinist Theology agrees with the Scriptures – the Scriptures are true – and Calvinist theology is consistent with the Scriptures.”
The one true aspect of that statement is ‘the Scriptures are true’.
Rh writes:
br.d said, “in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as a human derived anything – since everything is expressly the byproduct of Calvin’s god’s DECREES.”
This is a wrong conclusion. God decrees everything and decrees various means to accomplish His purposes. One of these decrees is specified in James – “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin;”
Let’s rewrite this for accuracy:
‘Calvinism asserts this is a wrong conclusion. Calvinism asserts that God decrees everything and decrees various means to accomplish His purposes but deny responsibility for the ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ that he alone decrees.
James is quoted:
“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin;”
However, this is falsely termed a description of God’s decrees. James is not describing a decree by which God deliberately ordains irresistible sin but denies responsibility. This is Calvinism’s distortion. James is DENYING Calvinism’s assertions that ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ must be put at the feet of God, as per the faulty Calvinist claim that God is responsible for anything that comes to pass.
James is denying the most evil blasphemy, which would blame God for the existence and ramifications of sin and evil. James tells us, rightly, that sin does not, nay cannot, come from God. Neither directly nor as some secret, hidden secondary means behind which God hides his controlling hands.
James is, IMO, saying that man’s sinful desires arise from within himself, and are NEVER to be attributed to the decree, desire or secret strings of God’s irresistible compulsion.
Rh writes:
“We know that a person is born without faith and that his sin nature gives rise to those desires that lead to sin and death. God understands all this and by not changing either the sin nature or the desires it generates, God decreed both. However, James is still true and accurately describes the events that unfold wherein God does not tempt anyone.”
Again, let us examine this piece by faulty piece.
“We know that a person is born without faith.”
This is irrelevant. The non-Calvinist does not claim that faith is inborn, but the capacity to have faith in anything. No one is claiming that newborns have faith in God. Newborns do not have the conceptual frameworks to know or believe anything. If properly cared for, they are trained, through experience, to have faith in the care of their parents. If this is absent, the child will struggle with having faith in anything else in the future.
“[We know] that his [a person’s] sin nature gives rise to those desires that lead to sin and death.
This is simply a misinterpretation of what scripture actually states. The desires of the flesh are inherent to any person who is made of flesh. This is all that the much misused ‘sin nature’ refers to. Because mankind is, by nature, made of flesh, he is susceptible to the deceptions of Satan, which provoke and encourage sinful concupiscence. Satan uses the good, God-given desires that were meant to give life to hurt and destroy. Our desires for food, drink, intimacy, love, etc. were all given to us by God for our good, and the preservation of life. Satan twists these desires, leading us to believe that we need more than what is necessary for survival, and encourages us to rob others of what they have or need in order to fill our own, now inordinate, desires.
This is sin in a nutshell. This is what the so-called ‘sin nature’ or ‘flesh’ refers to. And, as James has just told us, these sinful desires were not placed in us by God, who cannot and would not ever lead anyone to sin.
“God understands all this”
Rather, Calvinism asserts certain things about God that most people see scripture as rejecting, again, as James has just explained.
“and by not changing either the sin nature or the desires it generates, God decreed both.”
Here we have the crux of the Calvinist errors, and a good deal of misleading being done as well. Calvinism does not assert that God does not ‘change’ the sin nature or the desires it generates. Calvinism asserts that God directly, deliberately – contrary to James (and Ezekiel, and all of scripture) – cursed man with a sin nature before he was ever born, which he neither sought nor can escape on his own. This, again, is the mere tradition of men, teaching that a good and loving God deliberately enslaved men to sin, then held them responsible for not resisting sin. This I, and most biblicists who have not fallen under sway of centuries of Calvinist teachings, would utterly reject.
A second false implication of this statement is the assumption of God’s determinism, or meticulous orchestration of whatsoever comes to pass. This is begging the question. The Calvinist is attempting to prove that God determines all things based on the assumption that God determines all things. What is totally ignored is the very real possibility, posited by most non-Calvinists, that God created men with a free moral will, allowing him even the possibility of resisting God’s perfect will and succumbing to the temptations of the evil one.
If, as non-Calvinists assert, God is not tyrannically controlling, and does not compel the desires or choices of the creatures who he granted reason and freedom of choice, then it does not follow that God’s not ‘forcing’ men to not sin equates to his desiring men to sin. This, of course, is the principle of mere permission, which Calvinism denies, but which non-Calvinists assert is the only moral explanation for the existence of sin in creation, apart from it being God’s own deliberate invention.
Allowing the existence of free will, and the sin which followed, is not the same as decreeing sin. God’s allowing men to make free choices which are contrary to what he desires is not the same as decreeing that men act contrary to God’s will. It is simply decreeing that men have freedom of choice, however good or bad those choices might be.
“However, James is still true’
This is the clincher. The Calvinist lays out his belief system that contradicts everything scripture actually teaches, then says, ‘However, scripture is still true.’ This is what we see practiced day after day by rhutchin on these threads.
“and accurately describes the events that unfold wherein God does not tempt anyone.”
James does explain why God does not tempt anyone. Calvinism, on the other hand, completely denies James’ teaching, and falsely asserts that God actually does tempt everyone. Oh, they try to hide behind ‘secondary means’ as if using a stick to hit someone is not actually hitting them, but most thoughtful people can see through such silliness. If God ordains, decrees, controls and brings to pass whatsoever comes to pass – BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER – God is still the one who is responsible for whatsoever comes to pass.
God can use direct force.
God can curse man with a nature that cannot but sin.
God can implant secret desires.
God can implant within his created beings unseen processes that allow him to control the thoughts, desires, choices and actions –including sin and evil – which appear to arise unbidden from man’s own self.
God can devise an invisible remote control which effectively dictates man’s every move.
God can devise any secondary means to force his will to be don, however above and beyond the conception of men, and it still leaves him with the sole responsibility for whatsoever he has decreed and irresistibly brought to pass.
Yes, James accurately describes how events ‘unfold wherein God does not tempt anyone’. It is not James that misleads us, but the demonic twisting of scripture practiced by Calvinism that makes the false charge that God is responsible for sin and evil in this world.
TS00 writes, “James is, IMO, saying that man’s sinful desires arise from within himself, and are NEVER to be attributed to the decree, desire or secret strings of God’s irresistible compulsion.”
God has a full understanding of His creation and knows the thoughts of people and has the power to direct a person away from sin. God must decide (or decree) not to direct a person away from sin in order for sin to occur. Nothing can happen apart form God’s knowledge and ability to influence. So, man’s sinful desires arise from within himself and can only be expressed in sinful actions if God decrees it.
Then, ‘The non-Calvinist does not claim that faith is inborn, but the capacity to have faith in anything. No one is claiming that newborns have faith in God. ”
Here the Calvinist and non-Calvinist agree. Paul in Romans 8 describes it this way, “those who are in the flesh [without faith] cannot please God.” Thus it is that “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” Paul, by his testimony in Galatians, says, “…when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me,…” It is God who decides (or decrees) when He will draw a person to Christ. Before that time, it is God’s decree that the person live apart from Christ, where “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” And why not, because Paul says, “the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries,…” No person takes a breath or awakes from sleep except by God’s decree for it is “in God we live and move and have our being,” There is nothing that can happen without God’s knowledge and because God knows all that can happen, only those things will happen that He decrees to happen.
rhutchin:“[We know] that his [a person’s] sin nature gives rise to those desires that lead to sin and death.
TS00: The desires of the flesh are inherent to any person who is made of flesh. This is all that the much misused ‘sin nature’ refers to.
Yes, and as Paul said, “the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries,…” So, it is wrong to say, “Satan uses the good, God-given desires that were meant to give life to hurt and destroy…” For, as Paul said, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” that statement would have been true of Adam and Eve but not those born after Adam sinned.
Then, “as James has just told us, these sinful desires were not placed in us by God, who cannot and would not ever lead anyone to sin.”
However, it is God who enforced the penalty against Adam so that Adam’s descendants where born with a corrupt sin nature and no faith. Thus, Jeremiah says, ““The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;…” and Paul says, “you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.”
Then, “Calvinism asserts that God directly, deliberately – contrary to James (and Ezekiel, and all of scripture) – cursed man with a sin nature before he was ever born, which he neither sought nor can escape on his own.”
By not giving a person faith from birth, that is the effect. Until a person is given faith, his heart is desperately wicked and his thoughts and actions are evil. As Jesus said, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.”
Then, “The Calvinist is attempting to prove that God determines all things based on the assumption that God determines all things.”
No, the Calvinist takes Ephesians to be true, “God works (or determined) all things according to the counsel of His will,”
Then, “What is totally ignored is the very real possibility, posited by most non-Calvinists, that God created men with a free moral will, ”
Such is impossible without faith.
rhutchin
God has a full understanding of His creation and knows the thoughts of people and has the power to direct a person away from sin.
br.d
What Calvin’s god has full understanding of – is what he will DECREE a person’s sin to be/do
And he knows he DOES NOT PERMIT the creature to be/do otherwise – in pain of falsifying/negating his DECREE.
Calvinist Stephen Charnock states it this way:
-quote
God sees and knows the nature of things in the IDEAS OF HIS OWN MIND.
He sees and knows the events of things in the degrees OF HIS WILL.
He knows them *NOT* by viewing the things [themselves[, but [rather] by viewing himself.
His own essence is the mirror and book, wherein he beholds all things…”.
– (The Existence and Attributes of God)
Westminster Confession states it this way:
-quote:
“Although God knoweth whatsoever *MAY* or *CAN* come to pass upon all supposed conditions. Yet hath He *NOT* decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which *WOULD* come to pass upon such conditions.”
rhutchin
God must decide (or decree) not to direct a person away from sin in order for sin to occur.
br.d
Thank you for another great example of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Since in Theological Determinism NOTHING can come to pass without Calvin’s god’s DECREE – making [X] sin REQUIRES Calvin’s god’s DECREEING it.
Thus Calvin’s god is DOUBLE-MINDED to “direct [X] away from” the very thing he DECREES concerning [X].
In other words – to DECREE [X] and [NOT X] – is DOUBLE-MINDED
Rh writes:
“God has a full understanding of His creation and knows the thoughts of people and has the power to direct a person away from sin. God must decide (or decree) not to direct a person away from sin in order for sin to occur. Nothing can happen apart form God’s knowledge and ability to influence. So, man’s sinful desires arise from within himself and can only be expressed in sinful actions if God decrees it.”
This is a good example of rh’s countless semantic swirls of truth, faulty Calvinist preconceptions, scripture, and/or logical inconsistencies/misleading statements .
Let us examine it, piece by piece, and categorize its errors.
“God has a full understanding of His creation and knows the thoughts of people and has the power to direct a person away from sin.” TRUTH/FAULTY PRECONCEPTION/LOGICAL ICONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT
TRUTH: God has full understanding of all things and all people, and that God has the power to do anything he chooses to do.
FAULTY PRECONCEPTION: All things originate with and are predetermined by God’s decree. God alone determines all things which shall ever exist, thus his power is the sole determiner of whatsoever comes to pass.
LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT: Under Calvinistic Determinism, all things originate with and are predetermined by God’s decree. There is nothing for God’s power to direct away from if God is the source of whatsoever comes to pass. Man cannot possibly be the originator of sinful desires, sin or any potential departure from God’s decretive will. All must have originated with God, as there is no other power in creation – including man’s desire – which can originate good or evil.
LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY: Under Calvinistic Determinism, all things originate with and are predetermined by God’s decree. There can be no sin. Sin requires a free choice to disobey God, which requires there not be a deterministic cause of man’s actions. If God did not originate man’s actions, then Calvinistic Determinism is false. If God did originate man’s actions, none of these predetermined, irresistible actions can be classified as sin.
“God must decide (or decree) not to direct a person away from sin in order for sin to occur.” LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT
LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT: Under Calvinistic Determinism, all things originate with and are predetermined by God’s decree. There is nothing for God’s power to direct away from if God is the source of whatsoever comes to pass. Man cannot possibly be the originator of sinful desires, sin or any potential departure from God’s decretive will. All must have originated with God, as there is no other power in creation – including man’s desire – which can originate good or evil.
LOGICAL INCONSTISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT: God’s decrees precede and determine man’s existence, desires and actions, thus God cannot be said to decree to allow or deny any desire or action. He simply originates all desires and actions, by any and all chosen means. For God to decree to direct a person away from sin, said sin would either have had to originate from some power outside of God or God would have to decree that the man would desire to sin. Apart from a competing power, you would have God first decreeing sinful desire exist, then decreeing that the sinful desire be allowed or denied. There is nothing against which God can act – but himself – if whatsoever comes to pass arises solely from God’s sovereign, determinative decree.
“Nothing can happen apart form God’s knowledge and ability to influence.” LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT
LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT: Under Calvinistic Determinism, all things originate with and are predetermined by God’s decree. It is logically inconsistent to state that anything can merely be the result of God’s (fore)knowledge and ability to influence. This would require something potentially arising or occurring apart from God’s decree, which is logically inconsistent with God predetermining whatsoever comes to pass. The honest statement would be that ‘Nothing can happen apart from God’s determinative decree.’ As Calvin repeatedly argued, all things must arise from God’s ACTIVE determinative decree, not from Mere Permission.
“So, man’s sinful desires arise from within himself and can only be expressed in sinful actions if God decrees it.” LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT
LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY/MISLEADING STATEMENT: Under Calvinistic Determinism, all things originate with and are predetermined by God’s decree. Thus, neither sin, nor any other thing can arise from within man’s self apart from God’s determinative decree. The desire to sin is the means by which God brings to pass the sin which he alone has decreed must, irresistibly, come to pass.
TS00
it is simply inconsistent with Calvinism.
br.d
Thank you TS00.
Yes – metaphorically speaking – there are times when the Calvinist systematic LOGICALLY concludes [X] – while the scripture says [NOT X]. And the Calvinist has a few ways of dealing with that.
Firstly, they will redefine terms within verses so that the scripture APPEARS to not contradict the systematic
And when that is not possible they will MAKE-BELIEVE the systematic agrees with the verse – when the case is the opposite.
Just think of the mental burden it must be for the Calvinist to acknowledge instances where his systematic is antithetical to scripture. He has to much of a mental investment to allow himself to acknowledge that.
br.d writes, ‘Since the attribute of faith is designed into humans and is part of the human DNA …”
You presume this and now need to prove that it is true.
br.d
Since the attribute of faith is designed into humans and is part of the human DNA …”
rhutchin
You presume this and now need to prove that it is true.
br.d
Silly!
You already affirmed it – when you agreed that babies are born with faith.
What do you think – Calvin’s god assembles baby parts in the womb – manufacturing each baby like a robot assembly-line and as the final part – inserts an invisible “faith” floppy drive into the brain? :-]
br.d writes, “Silly! You already affirmed it – when you agreed that babies are born with faith.”
A million people could affirm it and it would still need a proof.
br.d
Silly!
You already affirmed it – when you agreed that babies are born with faith.”
rhutchin
A million people could affirm it and it would still need a proof.
br.d
So here we have Calvin’s god determining you to affirm and then wanting proof of what you affirm.
How RATIONAL is that!
If you need proof that babies believe their mothers will tend to their needs when they cry – you have bigger problems to deal with then that.
I still think Calvin’s god is having fun playing with your mind :-]
br.d: “You already affirmed it – when you agreed that babies are born with faith.”
rhutchin: “A million people could affirm it and it would still need a proof.”
br.d: “If you need proof that babies believe their mothers will tend to their needs when they cry – you have bigger problems to deal with then that. ”
You made the claim that babies have faith; you need to provide the proof for that statement. It seems obvious that you cannot.
RH says to BR.D
“You made the claim that babies have faith; you need to provide the proof for that statement. It seems obvious that you cannot.”
We have done even better than that we have show from Scripture that unsaved Adults have faith…they simply place their faith in the wrong OBJECT…
rhutchin
You made the claim that babies have faith; you need to provide the proof for that statement. It seems obvious that you cannot.
br.d
Funny – you affirmed that – and now you want proof of what you affirm.
Can you sight any evidence or proof that you have faith in Jesus?
rhutchin
We know that the Scriptures are true and do not have to prove them true. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
br.d
Now wait a minute rhutchin – when you say “we” you are talking about two people groups.
There is you – a Theological Determinist – and there are others who are not.
So you can’t speak for the IN-determinist – you can only speak for the Theological Determinist.
Now as a Theological Determinist who believes that Calvin’s god determines your every perception – and determining some of your perceptions to be TRUE and some to be FALSE – you really can’t say you “know that scripture are true”.
All you can say is that Calvin’s god determines your perceptions of scripture – and determines your perceptions of TRUE and FALSE. And only Calvin’s god “knows” whether or not the perceptions he determined you to have of scripture are TRUE or FALSE.
Remember you’re a determinist
So its time to think like one.
Hmmmm perhaps DOUBLE-THINK is the Determinist’s defense mechanism! :-]
br.d: Hmmmm perhaps DOUBLE-THINK is the Determinist’s defense mechanism! :-]
Precisely. And the casual observer, or he who is easily cowed by many confident words, simply hears the ‘Scripture states this, so this is what we affirm’ and does not perform the necessary task of studying to see if this ‘truth’ that scripture states which is being affirmed could be logically affirmed under the system of Calvinism. ‘Ah’, they are led to believe, ‘Calvinism just teaches what I already believe scripture teaches. Silly me to have thought otherwise.’
This is the strategy that deceives many for some time, until they are shown or come to realize the ‘trick’ that is being used on them. Read through the many blogs, or the Sot101 FB discussion page and you will find countless x-Calvinists who were deceived by this strategy, then finally saw through it. Eventually most wise up, and say, ‘I see what you did there, and am no longer deceived by that trick.’
Yes, scripture says God is love.
Yes, Calvinists will verbally affirm the teaching of scripture.
No, it is not logically consistent with the five points of Calvinism.
One could plug many scriptural statements into this formula:
1. Scripture says ________________.
2. John Piper (or your favorite Calvinist) affirms ____________________.
3. The five points of Calvinism assert ____________________________.
You will quickly see that 1 and 2 often do not align with 3. The deceit being practiced is when 2 ignores the utter inconsistency of 1 and 3. Nor is this accidental, at least on the part of those who genuinely understand the theology. Many who have been deceived by this, however, simply parrot what they have been told, and do not see the inconsistencies.
TS00
Many who have been deceived by this, however, simply parrot what they have been told, and do not see the inconsistencies.
br.d
Yes exactly – great point!
And I think perhaps this gives us an insight into a process of indoctrination.
The practice of repeating an IRRATIONAL thought over and over.
If one repeats it over and over enough times – the brain will actually accept it as true.
RH:writes: “The object of faith does not change. Faith itself changes from a human derived faith to a God derived faith.”
This is purely a Calvinist invention to hold their system together and make it sound somewhat Biblical.
Don’t overlook this little gem from rh :
“GA also seems to have issues with Calvinists saying that God is omniscient and knew who would be saved and lost before He created he universe.”
That Calvi-god is one smart cookie – he knows exactly who he irresistibly determined to save. He foresees every event he irresistibly ordained. He has intimate understanding of everything he will irresistibly bring to pass. Does anyone else see how silly such statements are? Omniscience, foreknowledge and understanding what will come to pass mean absolutely nothing if God is the author and cause of all things that come to pass. Even I know what I have done, and if I had the power to control all things, past, present and future, I would, of course, know them all. That’s not omniscience, it’s pure tyranny.
The Calvinist – at least this one – likes to pretend that omniscience has meaning in a meticulously determined world. Neither omniscience, knowledge or understanding come into play at all in a world in which the creator deterministically controls all things. There is nothing to omnisce (okay, I made that up), know or understand, apart from what he himself has brought or will bring into existence. It is simply nonsense talk, under divine determinism, to say God is omniscient or has knowledge of future events. Of course Calvi-god knows exactly what Calvi-god plans and unfailingly brings to pass. Duh.
I absolutely agree TSOO!
Calvinists are always pointing the finger at IN-determinists – calling them semi-heretics etc.
And then they spend the other 90% of their time working up deceptive schemes trying to SMUGGLE in camouflaged form – the same exact IN-determinism they call semi-heretical.
On a funny note I started thinking about the Star Trek Next Generation show – and how one of the things the authors of that show thought-up was a Holodeck. I don’t know if you’re a Star Trek buff – but the Holdeck was established as standard equipment on all star-ships to allow crew members to escape the mental hardship of living in isolation in space.
The HoloDeck is a room in which the ships computer creates simulated worlds. And the human brain happily accepts the simulation as real.
As you may know a computer is a fully determined entity. We know that Determinism is a belief system that is unlivable – it is totally unnatural – and that’s why all world renowned determinists will tell you – even though they believe in Determinism – they have to live *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE.
The thing that is funny about that is with rhutchin’s arguments – he has created his own personal HoloDeck. where Calvin’s god is the ships computer who DECREES simulated aspects of IN-determinism which allow rhutchin to escape undesirable aspects of his belief system.
He comes up with these ideas about Calvin’s god having infinite understanding of what creatures would do in an IN-deterministic world – so that Calvin’s god can decree those things – and you soon realize what rhutchin is arguing for is always some aspect of an IN-deterministic world.
So those arguments are really nothing more than schemes to escape Determinism.
He can then claim to be a proud Determinist – while escaping undesirable aspects of his belief system.
What this boils down to is the Calvinists love-hate relationship with his own doctrine.
I know its frustrating to hear all of the dishonest arguments and all the deceptive word games repeated over and over like a broken record. On the one hand I can’t imagine how professing Christians can justify lowering themselves to such tactics in order to live with an unethical and irrational belief system.
.
But on the other hand I often feel sorry for them. They are caught in a snare the Lord could deliver them from – if they would only desire to be delivered.
br.d writes, “He comes up with these ideas about Calvin’s god having infinite understanding of what creatures would do in an IN-deterministic world – so that Calvin’s god can decree those things – and you soon realize what rhutchin is arguing for is always some aspect of an IN-deterministic world.”
The Calvinist conclusion is taken from Ephesians 1, “God works (or decrees) all things according to the counsel (a counsel incorporating His infinite understanding of all things) of His will (His eternal purpose),” All this occurred prior to the creation and consequent to God’s working (or decreeing) of all things, He has an omniscient knowledge of all that will happen in His creation from beginning to end. Everything is certain once God creates.
If in-determinists agree with the Calvinists on Ephesians 1 and conclude it is not determinism, that is fine. It just helps to define Calvinism. I think the need now is to define what one means by an “IN-deterministic world.”
Regardless, it seems that calvinists and IN-determinists agree on the meaning of Ephesians 1:11. They don’t have to disagree on everything.
br.d
He comes up with these ideas about Calvin’s god having infinite understanding of what creatures would do in an IN-deterministic world – so that Calvin’s god can decree those things – and you soon realize what rhutchin is arguing for is always some aspect of an IN-deterministic world.”
rhutchin
The Calvinist conclusion is taken from Ephesians 1, “God works (or decrees) all things according to the counsel (a counsel incorporating His infinite understanding of all things) of His will (His eternal purpose),” All this occurred prior to the creation and consequent to God’s working (or decreeing) of all things, He has an omniscient knowledge of all that will happen in His creation from beginning to end. Everything is certain once God creates.
br..d
Here we go again – trying to make scripture affirm square-circles, married-bachelors, and FALSE-TRUTH.
IRRATIONAL thinking will always produce an IRRATIONAL interpretation.
rhutchin
If in-determinists agree with the Calvinists on Ephesians 1 and conclude it is not determinism, that is fine. It just helps to define Calvinism. I think the need now is to define what one means by an “IN-deterministic world.”
br.d
FALSE
No one here is fooled by that. Knowledgeable Christians know Calvinism is defined as Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Which BY LOGIC mutually excludes IN-determinism. Calvinism simply wants to *USE* scripture to affirm Calvinism – which often requires MAKING-BELIEVE scripture says the opposite of what it does. For example “Man’s heart plans his own way” – when in Calvinism it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS “Calvin’s god SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY plans man’s way leaving nothing left over for man to plan”.
Thus Calvinists are forced to embrace a world of square-circles, married-bachelors, and FALSE-TRUTHS.
And that is why they are always engineering schemes designed to escape Determinism.
rhutchin
Regardless, it seems that calvinists and IN-determinists agree on the meaning of Ephesians 1:11. They don’t have to disagree on everything.
br.d
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
br.d writes, ‘Here we go again – trying to make scripture affirm square-circles, married-bachelors, and FALSE-TRUTH.”
You should offer your explanation for Ephesians 1:11 and explain how the explanation I offered is wrong.
Then, “FALSE. No one here is fooled by that….”
Your comments suggested you thought they were the same when you said – “you soon realize what rhutchin is arguing for is always some aspect of an IN-deterministic world.” So, it is good that you clarified this point.
br.d
‘Here we go again – trying to make scripture affirm square-circles, married-bachelors, and FALSE-TRUTH.”
rhutchin
You should offer your explanation for Ephesians 1:11 and explain how the explanation I offered is wrong.
br.d
When one knows from the onset that a certain path leads to dead-end – wisdom dictates we take instead a path that doesn’t lead to a dead-end :-]
rhutchin
Then, “FALSE. No one here is fooled by that….”
Your comments suggested you thought they were the same when you said – “you soon realize what rhutchin is arguing for is always some aspect of an IN-deterministic world.” So, it is good that you clarified this point.
br.d
This is a great example of how IRRATIONAL thinking will always result in an IRRATIONAL interpretation.
After having explicitly stating in that post – Determinism and IN-determinism mutually exclude one another – to conclude that that “suggests they are the same” is IRRATIONAL thinking.
And applying IRRATIONAL thinking to scripture would be an even worse mistake.
br.d writes, “When one knows from the onset that a certain path leads to dead-end – wisdom dictates we take instead a path that doesn’t lead to a dead-end :-]”
So, you don’t have a different way to explain Ephesians 1:11 or just refuse to do so. Either way, the discussion can go no further.
br.d
When one knows from the onset that a certain path leads to dead-end – wisdom dictates we take instead a path that doesn’t lead to a dead-end :-]”
rhutchin
So, you don’t have a different way to explain Ephesians 1:11 or just refuse to do so. Either way, the discussion can go no further.
br.d
When one chooses an IRRATIONAL path – and the other doesn’t – then yes.
However one of SOT101’s benefits is providing examples to SOT101 readers of how much DOUBLE-THINK there is in Calvinism – manifested by its DOUBLE-SPEAK.
And I don’t think that is going to end any time soon :-]
TS00 writes, “Neither omniscience, knowledge or understanding come into play at all in a world in which the creator deterministically controls all things. ”
It is by God’s infinite understanding that God can work all things after the counsel of His will and thereby is said to determine all things and this leads to His omniscient knowledge of all things.
If you don’t like this, then offer a different explanation for Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,”
rhutchin
If you don’t like this, then offer a different explanation for Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,”
br.d
Conflating Theological Determinism with scripture will eventually create a contorted IRRATIONAL pretzel.
That’s why Calvinists spend so much time inventing schemes and word games trying to get around it.
br.d writes, “Now you’re just chasing your own tail again.”
Thank you for not denying my comment.
Thank you, GA,
That is a very straightforward and yet such a simple argument, which is what makes it so compelling. So true is the fact, that we are always believing in something. We are either believing in the truth, or we are believing in a lie. And, that it is the object of our faith that makes the difference in whether we are saved or not. I think this absolutely knocks it out of the park for me.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” And so, it is only when we put our trust in Him, that we can come to the Father. But Paul, in preaching the gospel to the Athenians, said, that God now commands all men everywhere to repent. This means that God DESIRES that “all men everywhere” be saved — All — Bar None. Now, If – Irresistible Grace – was the means by which “all men” were saved, then truly “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” would be saved. But, since this not what we see, despite the fact that God wants all men everywhere to be saved;
This is proof positive, that doctrine of – Irresistible Grace – is a lie.
Thanks again,
Aidan.
Aiden writes, “This means that God DESIRES that “all men everywhere” be saved — All — Bar None. Now, If – Irresistible Grace – was the means by which “all men” were saved, then truly “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” would be saved. But, since this not what we see, despite the fact that God wants all men everywhere to be saved;
This is proof positive, that doctrine of – Irresistible Grace – is a lie.”
Or that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” refers back to v26 and the designation, “every nation of men,” and this would tell us that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” means both Jews and gentiles and not just the Jews.
rhutchin
Or that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” refers back to v26 and the designation, “every nation of men,” and this would tell us that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” means both Jews and gentiles and not just the Jews.
br.d
Which LOGICALLY resolves to a THEOS who wills ALL MEN saved and wills ALL MEN damned at the same time. Because Calvinism has two groups of ALL MEN. The ALL MEN damned and the ALL MEN elect. A concept the Calvinist is forced to ADD into the text.
Calvinism would have been seen as paralleling the Jehovah’s Witnesses if they had followed the practice of PHYSICALLY adding their concepts into the text. Calvinists accomplish this anyway by training the brain to ADD concepts into the text mentally. That allows them to claim they don’t alter the text.
br.d writes, “Which LOGICALLY resolves to a THEOS who wills ALL MEN saved and wills ALL MEN damned at the same time. ”
“ALL MEN” would be the same group, Jews and gentiles, from which God chooses to save some (requiring that He draw them to Christ) while choosing not to save all others (requiring that He take no action).
br.d
Which LOGICALLY resolves to a THEOS who wills ALL MEN saved and wills ALL MEN damned at the same time. ”
rhutchin
“ALL MEN” would be the same group, Jews and gentiles,
br.d
An excellent example of a SEMANTIC argument. :-]
rhuthin
from which God chooses to save some (requiring that He draw them to Christ) while choosing not to save all others (requiring that He take no action).
br.d
FALSE
The action required of Calvin’s god – as the divine potter – according to the doctrine of DECREES – is to DECREE the LOT in life of each Jew’s and each Gentile’s eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure. Without that action – no such thing comes to pass.
The good news here is that you provide excellent examples to SOT101 readers – of the degree of expertise Calvinism has developed in its evolving library of DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
Now the SOT101 reader has to ask himself the question – why the “so called” TRUE Gospel has to be enunciated using deceptive language tricks.
RH writes:
Or that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” refers back to v26 and the designation, “every nation of men,” and this would tell us that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” means both Jews and gentiles and not just the Jews.”
My Response is : WHAT’S THE SCOPE OF THE CONTEXT TO “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” (v.30)?
In v24 – NKJV – It’s “God who made the world and everything in it,”
In v25 – NKJV – It’s “He gives to all life, breath, and all things.”
In v26 – NKJV – It’s “every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth”
In v27 – NKJV – It’s “He is not far from each one of us;”
In v28 – NKJV – It’s “we are also His offspring.”
In v29 – NKJV – It’s “shaped by art and man’s devising.”
In v30 – NKJV – It’s “now commands all men everywhere to repent”.
In v31 – NKJV – It’s “He will judge the WORLD….He has given assurance of this to ALL by raising Him from the dead.”
I think, from the context, we can see that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” means simply, “EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE” in the world.
That is, “GOD,.. NOW COMMANDS ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT,”(Acts 17:30).
Aiden writes, “I think, from the context, we can see that “ALL MEN EVERYWHERE” means simply, “EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE” in the world.”
Meaning all men individually. That’s one way to look at it. Or we can see it as commanding all men, whether Jew of gentile, to repent.
In Acts 17, Paul is preaching to people in Athens as he begins, “Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens,…”
When we get to v30, Paul presents his conclusion, “God commands all men everywhere to repent,” – Jew, gentile, and you men of Athens.
There is nothing wrong with your understanding, so long as you understand that the command is given through the preaching of the gospel and every individual in the world will not hear the gospel. So, we could understand Paul to be saying, “”God commands all men everywhere [as individuals, whether they be Jew or gentile or even Athenian] to repent,…” Thus, any preacher today could exhort any audience in the same manner.
This is far different than what you said earlier, “This means that God DESIRES that “all men everywhere” be saved — All — Bar None.” If God truly desires each and every individual to be saved and this requires that each and every individual to hear the gospel, then God will have to ensure that each and every individual hears the gospel preached.
rhutchin
If God truly desires each and every individual to be saved and this requires that each and every individual to hear the gospel, then God will have to ensure that each and every individual hears the gospel preached.
br.d
An excellent example of how Universal Divine Causal Determinism dictates Calvinist thinking.
Now just stand back and watch him spend the rest of his energy and thought developing schemes designed to make Determinism Masquerade as IN-determinism – and all of that business reveals the duplicitous nature of the system.
Rhutchin, you wrote: In reference to Acts 17:30;
“Meaning all men individually. That’s one way to look at it. Or we can see it as commanding all men, whether Jew of gentile, to repent.”
My Response is:
There is only one way we should look at it, namely, as per what the context reveals. If we ignore that context, just as you have done here, we ignore it at our own peril. It doesn’t matter whether we agree with it or not, facts don’t care about your feelings.
Let’s say you were in that audience – long before John Calvin – in Athens, in the first century; and you heard that sermon by Paul against the Idolatrous practices of the nations, and also of your ignorance of the true God. And then upon hearing him conclude with these words;
“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”(Acts 17:30-31).
How do you think you would you have looked at it hearing those words from Paul in Athens? Would you have looked at it in it’s simplest form, just as it was meant to be received that day? Or, would you have looked at it as you do today – muddied by the theologies of men? I wonder if you would look at those two concluding verses above, and tell me, how might you have heard that charge by God in Athens?
Hi Aidan,
Glad this contribution was helpful..your comments are much appreciated.
Thanks again, GA, I really enjoyed it.