The following, the first in a three-article series, was penned by a friend of the ministry, Dale. W. Decker. You can find him at the Theogineer. Thank you, Dale.
At The Dock, But Not On-board The Ship
While Reformed Theology and Calvinism may not be strictly equivalent terms, I think they are essentially equivalent in common usage. I use the terms interchangeably in this article.
I was raised in a Pentecostal church that focused more on one’s immediate experience of God than on interacting with the historical doctrines of orthodox Christianity. The preaching and teaching centered around biblical texts dealing with speaking in tongues, miraculous healing, prophesying, the rapture, etc. This left me with a rather truncated view of scripture and of biblical doctrine in general.
Then one day I picked up a copy of the book The Mystery Of The Holy Spirit by Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul. My rather parochial view of the Holy Spirit was broadened significantly. This set me off on a voracious reading frenzy of the rest of Sproul’s books as well as other Reformed writers. Soon I had entire shelves of books by R.C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArther, Sinclair Ferguson, Timothy Keller and others. I read or listened to their sermons. I perused their websites. I saw them at conferences. I was immersed in biblical and doctrinal study from the Reformed Theology perspective.
Therefore, as a simple matter of consequence, I was exposed to the TULIP doctrines of Reformed Theology and Calvinism. However, while I agreed with the Five Solas of the Reformation, I could never get fully on board with Reformed Theology in the form of Calvinism. Yet, if someone looked at the streams of thought influencing my own, it would be natural to think of me as in the New Reformed movement.
My reservations, in main, came from that the more I studied the scriptures using the hermeneutical skills I learned from Reformed theologians, the less I was able to accept Calvinism as a biblically coherent system. I used the “fish and bones” strategy… when eating a fish, you consume the meat and spit out the bones. I continued to learn from Reformed sources I was unable see how the teaching harmonized with the plain thrust of the Gospel message without requiring mental gymnastics to do so.
I was also not rabidly anti-Calvinistic. After attending and working on staff at a Provisionist church for 20 years, my wife and I moved from Kentucky to Colorado. Being eager to find a new church, we selected one that was clearly Reformed in its statement of faith. It was a good church with many good qualities, but after several months I realized I had misunderstood their doctrinal position completely. For conscience sake, we left and found another church more in keeping with our own convictions. I have become much more thoughtful about distancing myself from Calvinism because of that experience.
This has become necessary because Calvinism has gained a lot of traction in the last 20-30 years and is, I think, perceived as the “theological system of choice” among serious students of the Bible. Moreover, at the level of popular consumption, Calvinism becomes a self-reinforcing system with Reformed authors blurbing the books of other Reformed authors, Reformed pastors hosting conferences with other Reformed pastors, etc. In many ways, Calvinism is as insular and parochial as was my Pentecostal upbringing and fosters the same two-tier view of believers, those who have it right and those who are lacking.
(For example, consider this video clip of Calvinist pastors answering the question “Why are so many against reformed theology?” at www.youtube.com/watch?v=yorGsechzrI)
My overall rejection of Calvinism as a tenable system can be illustrated with three points – one philosophical, one theological and one biblical. Philosophically, Calvinism’s decretal understanding of reality inexorably collapses into an unlivable determinism. Theologically, the idea of total inability, as defined in Calvinism, has crippling implications for the doctrine of the Incarnation. Biblically, unconditional election renders much (if not all) of Jesus’s ministry a misinformation campaign. I’ll elaborate each point in more detail.
Determinism: A Few More Dominoes In The Chain
First, we have to acknowledge the incredible power of determinism to render life meaningless. Determinism, whether theistic or naturalistic in origin, effectively negates rationality, individuality, emotions, everything that makes us human. But before we go any further, lets define theistic determinism for the sake of this discussion.
The Westminster Confession, in its chapter on God’s Eternal Decree (Ch 3.1), says this:
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…
Reformed theologians further elaborate this to mean that God determines or causes everything that happens; nothing happens without God being the decisive factor. This includes not only physical events, but also the thoughts, feelings and decisions of human beings. As Reformed theologian Edwin H. Palmer states:
Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen. He is not sitting on the sidelines wondering and perhaps fearing what is going to happen next. No, he has foreordained everything “after the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist – even sin.
E.H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2009, p. 30
The Westminster Confession goes on to state that, though God ordains everything that comes to pass, he does so without causing one’s sin, violating one’s will, or otherwise infringing upon one’s liberty. Holding to theistic determinism (God causes everything to happen) and human liberty (we are responsible for our actions) inevitably requires one to engage in a vigorous form of cognitive dissonance. Holding to two opposing propositions simultaneously requires compartmentalization of the mind. This exercise in cognitive dissonance is generally dumped in the box of “mystery” by Reformed theologians.
My contention is that no one can act in accordance with theistic determinism because to do so is really and truly impossible for human beings. Let me demonstrate the erosive power of determinism on any rational discourse. If I state the following – “I believe in determinism” – and determinism is true, then my statement becomes nonsense because I cannot know it is true. I’m not “believing” in any rational sense of that word because I am not weighing options and evidence and making decisions. Whatever I say, think, feel, or do is being said, thought, felt, or done because God has determined me to produce it. In fact, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to maintain that there’s even an individual “me” involved since determinism makes human beings mere transmitters of states of being and not originators of thought, emotion, and behavior. One is merely a sophisticated mechanism and any concept of inner deliberation or selection between perceived available options is illusory.
If you disagree with what I’ve just said, and determinism is true, you haven’t really disagreed with me, you’ve only expressed the state of being that has been determined for you. In fact, my statement and your response are not logically connected at all. Determinism is so foundationally erosive to rationality that it is difficult to even entertain its truth because it renders any discussion vacuous. It is like having a discussion on the statement “words have no meaning”. Whoever accepts this statement as true immediately contradicts himself as soon as he begins using words to defend the truthfulness of the statement.
Determinism renders life meaningless. Not only meaningless, but incomprehensible and, ultimately, unlivable. No one who believes in determinism actually lives consistently with its implications. Since no one can truly live in accordance with theistic determinism, the result is cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps a more particular example will help illustrate the cognitive dissonance required to accept both theistic determinism and human liberty. Sometimes a critique of Calvinism’s second petal of TULIP, Unconditional Election, comes in the form of “If God has already decided who will be saved, then why witness to anyone?” The Calvinist response generally comes in one of two forms, either “God has commanded us to be witnesses, so we must obey” or “In salvation God has ordained the means as well as the ends.” I want to take a closer look at this second response.
The critique suggests that if someone has been decreed by God to be saved, then it will happen regardless of anyone else’s action or inaction. The questioner is wondering what significance, if any, does one’s behavior, such as prayer, witnessing or other evangelization efforts, have with regards to the lost. If something is fated to happen, then how does any action, one way or the other, have any significance?
With regards to the salvation of any individual the Calvinist seeks to assuage this perceived meaninglessness of action by referencing the antecedent chain that seemingly leads to salvation. God ordains the means as well as the ends. God has predetermined both the event and all the things prior to the event. The Calvinist is saying, “Yes, the fate of the one unconditionally elected by God for salvation has been pre-determined from all eternity. But take heart, all the actions leading to that salvation, of which you may be a part, have also been predetermined.”
So, God has arranged a chain of events that precedes an individual’s salvation event and if one is a part of that chain, then… what? Saying that God ordains the means as well as the ends does not add meaning to the meaninglessness of determinism. One cannot add meaning to the last domino in a chain by inserting more dominoes ahead of it. However, the most important thing about this discussion is missed by the Calvinist; the entire episode – question, response, and everything in between – is only occurring because it has been determined to occur. Determinism is a very sharp knife that cuts the meaning out of everything it touches.
Nicely argued.
To add, Determinism’s more stern iteration is Physicalism, which is a/The Redoubt for Humanists who choose to disbelieve the abundance of evidence affirming the existence of God. I’ve argued the chain from Determinism to Physicalism (in a vein similar to yours), with the unavoidable and depressing conclusion that Calvinistic Determinism paradoxically denies the existence of God.
Calvinists really REALLY don’t like to hear that, and tend to be knee-jerk dismissive.
It is my observation and belief that, while so many within Christian circles like to invoke the high-falutin’ terms of secular Reasoning and (formal/academic) Philosophy, their concurrent disdain for it (because SECULAR, tut tut…) results in an intermediate version one can only and fairly describe as Sophistic — especially as applied to Theological argumentation.
My experience is that it is often more difficult to argue with Christians than it is to argue with the unsaved, with many unsaved (philosophy students, most specifically) being willing to be proven wrong for pragmatic reasons.
Continue the good work.
Hello Raymond and welcome
If you have the time – could you unpackage what you are seeing on how Theological Determinism denies the existence of the THEOS?
Or were you speaking about Natural Determinism?
(“…excellent. They’re not going to let me off that easy…”)
I’ll write it up and post here. Give me a day or two.
Raymond said: “
My experience is that it is often more difficult to argue with Christians than it is to argue with the unsaved, with many unsaved (philosophy students, most specifically) being willing to be proven wrong for pragmatic reasons.”
Raymond, this has been my experience as well.
Interestingly though, ‘ on the street’ (if you will) , different from evangelism 20 years ago, whether crossing paths with the formally educated or not formally educated philosophy thinking of an unbeliever, I often have to return to “ remember, I am not a calvinist “ so they can hear I am NoT saying it has already been forced upon them by God to respond to the good news as true or not true even if they seek for what is true. Calvin’s philosophy of determinism, as if biblical doctrine, now so permeates the air that I first have to re-clarify with the unbeliever that such a ‘Calvinist ‘ teaching does not equal the good news message of the Christian and what God reveals is determined according to scripture. And then , yes, it is quicker and easier to talk to the unbeliever about how we in truth submit to The Faith and understand things “determined”, then it is to reason with the Calvinist about the word “determined.”
FYI: I correctly fall into the world’s category of ‘not formally educated’. But, so did Calvin claim, as a formally educated man, his held view was
not his own – him thinking his ( faulty) interpretation aligned with the measurement of scripture. I think the best of Calvin, that he had not recognize and did not distinguish that he abandon theology in search about ‘determined’ and settled on a philosophical “ism” that is not revealed in scripture to be an “ism”. At least that’s my evaluation when I test the spirit he shared on ‘determinism’ , which I see to be in disagreement with the light of scripture. He fell for ‘intellectualism’ as related to things determined, instead of following good intellect through the true baptism, which comes accordingly through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
Testing the spirits: the philosophical spirit of determinism, as defined in Calvin’s teaching, does not give glory to God.
Glory to God!- God reveals he created humanity with the ability to think for a reason, revealing to us the power of His breathe with justice or if He would so choose to remove it!
In Job 34-
Elihu Asserts God’s Justice
1Then Elihu answered and said:
2“Hear my words, you wise men,
and give ear to me, you who know;
3for the ear tests words
as the palate tastes food.
4Let us choose what is right;
let us know among ourselves what is good.
5For Job has said, ‘I am in the right,
and God has taken away my right;
6in spite of my right I am counted a liar;
my wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.’
7What man is like Job,
who drinks up scoffing like water,
8who travels in company with evildoers
and walks with wicked men?
9For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing
that he should take delight in God.’
10“Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
11For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
12Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
and the Almighty will not pervert justice.
13Who gave him charge over the earth,
and who laid on hima the whole world?
14If he should set his heart to it
and gather to himself his spirit and his breath,
15all flesh would perish together,
and man would return to dust.
( … and the rest of 34 for context :-). )
Revealed, of first importance, Corinthians 15 :*1-4, according to scripture, sharing one reason- Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53.
Who confesses the truth giving glory to the work of God? Those who come to believe God seeks to save the lost 💞 and the undeserving- We are given over to Jesus, drawn by the Word of God- always living and active in the world is God’s Spirit of Truth.
The Spirit and the Bride say Come! God proved to mankind , according to the resurrection of Jesus Christ He paid for our sins! Who believes God won the victory over sin and death? Take it! Free living water is offered to save! Made simple for those slow to understand… the depth of the good news- God so loved me and my neighbor, both sinners. Those who receive and believe He gives the right to be called children of God. Come! Right?
Once again very much appreciated. Great Article
Great job of showing how Determinism does not work Biblically and is also unlivable.
You state:
“I realized I had misunderstood their doctrinal position completely. For
conscience sake, we left and found another church more in keeping with our own
convictions. I have become much more thoughtful about distancing myself from
Calvinism because of that experience. ”
I think this is the case with many people they misunderstand what the Worldview really teaches.
Why this confusion?
Calvinists use many of the same terms but mean completely different things. Same vocabulary but different dictionary.
If they said what they really believed the system would be seen for what it is…but instead misleading terminology is used.
Keep up the good work
Open Theists Clark Pinnock defines libertarian freedom or the power of contrary choice as follows:
What I call “real freedom” is also called libertarian or contra-causal freedom. It views a free action as one in which a person is free to perform
an action or refrain from performing it and is not completely determined
in the matter by prior forces—nature, nurture or even God. Libertarian
freedom recognizes the power of contrary choice. One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise. Free choices are
choices that are not causally determined by conditions preceding them.
It is the freedom of self-determination, in which the various motives and
influences informing the choice are not the sufficient cause of the choice
itself. The person makes the choice in a self-determined way. A person
has options and there are different factors influencing us in deciding
among them but the decision one takes involves in making one of the reasons is one’s own, which is anything but random
Theopedia
“Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.”
Kevin My Response
These are just two definitions I found. If any Open Theists wants to reply to this in acceptance or rejection it would be of great help. Also any comment on the other definition of LFW would be helpful.
I think I have been told that LibFreedom or LFW can also be defined when one chooses according to one’s strongest inclination, desire even. I think maybe BRD in agreement with Johnathan Edwards. If so BRD could you show me where other evangelicals or Christian Theologians or Theologian Philosophers hold to this definition of LibFreedom or LFW.
Because here is the deal, if the will makes choices or even chooses otherwise due to “motives, inclinations, desires or reasons of the strongest motives, inclinations, desires or reasons. Then the will is being “caused or determined” How is the will free if it is being determined or caused by the strongest motive or inclination within?
Is there a definition for this “understanding of LibFreedom or LFW that is somewhat akin to Johnathan Edwards other than the Decree of God. So absent from the Decree of God.
Also want to make an assertion that is true on here even if one quotes that John Calvin said it. The Scriptures deny this emphatically.
God does not make one do something because of His “Eternal Decree” by some “supernatural secret irresistible power (when it comes to evil) by working “fresh evil directly upon the heart” moving the will to do evil.
Job 2:10 – But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Job does not mention Satan, he says the same good that came from God, “evil” also came from God also.
Which follows this verse also. Job lost everything. Every evil thing you can think of was done to Job. Even his family was murdered and Job says this.
Job 1:21 – And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”
Job says this right after his family was murdered and his property destroyed.
It was sin and wicked for David to number Israel but it was the Lord who moved David to do it. 2 Samuel 24:1
Then we read the parrell passage and it was Satan that moved David to number Israel but it was God’s will for it to be done because we find David calling himself foolish, repenting and asking mercy. God used Satan to move David to number Israel which was a sin because God was angry with Israel and wanted to punish them. Go back and read both accounts in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1
It was said on here before, (me paraphrasing) yeah but look God gave David three choices of punishment to choose from. I think this was brought up to deter and take the eyes off the fact that God did something that those who espouse LFW say God cannot do.
And the fact it illustrated how God moved David’s heart to number Israel which was a sin by using Satan as a “second cause/agent” and God was completely Holy in the whole matter.
But the fact remains this is still true and cannot be denied:
2 Samuel 24:1 – 24 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
1 Chronicles 21:1 – Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to [a]number Israel.
2 Chronicles 24:10 – 10 And David’s heart condemned him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, I pray, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly.”
GOD USED SATAN TO MOVE DAVID TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS EXCEEDINGLY SINFUL BEFORE THE LORD AND IT WAS GOD’S WILL BECAUSE GOD WAS ANGRY WITH ISRAEL 2 SAM. 24:1 AND DESIRED TO PUNISH THEM.
I was told by one person on here who felt the force of this Scriptural argument that he “chalked it up to a translation error” Then every Major Translation has made this translations error.
But we are told my one blogger on here that God gave David three choices of punishment. I think this is nothing more than a tactic to move one away from the fact that God moved David to number Israel which was a sin and God used Satan as a second cause/agent to accomplish this.
Not some supernatural power that God used to work directly upon David heart to produce fresh evil.
So yes God did give David three choices of punishment (do not forget God moved David to number Israel which was a sin and the LFW God says he cannot do) so why did God do this.
Because God knew David’s heart. That David had a heart after the heart of God himself. Notice David did not even choose any of the three choices. God knew in advance what David would choose. God used the means of the three choices to determine what David would do freely by his creaturly will. This is what David said:
2 Samuel 24: 11 Now when David arose in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, 12 “Go and tell David, ‘Thus says the Lord: “I offer you three things; choose one of them for yourself, that I may do it to you.” ’ ” 13 So Gad came to David and told him; and he said to him, “Shall seven[c] years of famine come to you in your land? Or shall you flee three months before your enemies, while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days’ plague in your land? Now consider and see what answer I should take back to Him who sent me.”
14 And David said to Gad, “I am in great distress. Please let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man.”
More in next comment:
Hi JUSKLNTIME2442,
I will explain these passages from my non-Calvinistic understanding.
2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 Chronicles 24:1
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
The same Hebrew word “sûth” can be translated “moved” and “provoked”. The word sûth has multiple meanings therefore the context defines the translation.
The Strongs definition describes “sûth” as – “To prick, that is (figuratively) stimulate; by implication to seduce:- entice, persuade, provoke, remove, move, set on, stir up, take away”
The context defines the translation of “sûth”. This is why I believe the KJV has the correct translation of these passages.
God moved David to do what Satan provoked him to do. But for what reason?
Satan’s reason to provoke David to number the people is because he wants him to fall into sin.
God’s reason for moving David to do what Satan provoked him to do is to teach David a valuable lesson knowing that his sin will lead him to repentance from his pride.
David had been getting prideful leading up this. He even placed one of the defeated king’s crowns upon his own head. David had the protection of God if he remained faithful but when a man becomes prideful God can remove his protection and let Satan have his way. We are not told how God “moved” David to number the people, but it can be by just removing his protection.
The Calvinist however use these passages to imply that both Satan and God will the same thing, that they both enticed David in the same way, but that is not correct. God’s intention for moving David to do what Satan provoked him to do was for totally opposite reasons.
The Calvinist will use this passage as a “proof” passage to imply (indirectly, with their tongue in their cheek) that wickedness originates ultimately from the hand of God. And if that is not what they are implying then I am still waiting to hear from them what they are implying this passage to be saying?
Keeping in mind – James 1:13-14
Thanks JUSKLNTIME2442
Damon.
Oops sorry wrong reference for second passage – 1 Chronicles 21:1
That was a very good response Damon. I do have a couple of issues with your comment though respectfully.
Damon
“We are not told how God “moved” David to number the people, but it can be by just removing his protection.
The Calvinist however use these passages to imply that both Satan and God will the same thing, that they both enticed David in the same way, but that is not correct.
Kevin My Response
We are told how told how God moved David to number Israel which was a Sin. And it was God will because if you read 2 Samuel 24:1 the Lord moved David to number Israel because he was angry with Israel.
We read in 1 Chronicles that God used God used Satan to number Israel, Of course their reasons for inciting or moving David to number Israel were different. God is Holy and does not delight in the breaking of any of His commandments. But it cannot be denied here that God used Satan as an instrument, a second cause/agent to accomplish his intended purpose which was to punishe David and Israel. Why in this manner we are not told. Satan moved and enticed David becaused he is sin personified and Satan is God’s Devil who does as God commands.
No where does it say God just removed His protectection. God used Satan to move David to number Israel which was a sin.
I also mentioned where God used Satan to destroy Job’s family and property all in one day in Job 1.
Job said the LORD GIVES AND THE LORD TAKES AWAY!
Job called his wife a foolish woman, and said we accept good from the Lord will we not accept evil from Him also?
Then to say that God does not bring good out of evil he (GOD) intended is just not Biblical?
Joseph was sold into slavery by evil wicked hearts of his brothers who at first wanted to kill him. The Lord kept that from happening through another brother because Joseph already had dreams from the Lord that his family would bow down to him.
When Joseph was reuinited with his brothers in Egypt they were fearful bc of what they had done to him. Joseph brought comfort to them and said:
What you MEANT for evil, God MEANT for good, to save many lives due to the famine.
The Word “Meant” in the Hebrew used for the brothers and God is the same word.
Showing that it was being used to signify the same thing. What the brothers meant for evil, God was working and overruling it, God meant it for Good.
I am not saying, as you know that bc I am not sure, that every single thought, word desire ect is decreed by God.
But I am asking that as I have compromised and seen this. There are verses in the Bible that show God doing things like moving the heart of David above to number Israel which was a sin. God did not work directly in his heart he used Satan to accomplish his purpose. And no Satan and God did not want the same thing with David in numbering Israel.
God bless and thanks and feed back is welcomed
Great post! So much I can relate to, and well said. I hope that it stirs many to carefully evaluate some of the things they have accepted unquestioningly, or perhaps having been persuaded by a particular interpretation of a few prooftexts.
Psalms 22:28 – For the kingdom is the LORD’S And He rules over the nations.
Is God just Deistic and just watching over evil and good? Or is he actively involved in some sense? I would emphatically assert that LFW is akin to the Doctrine of God being Deistic when it comes to God’s Providence, how he rules and governs the among the inhabitants of mankind.
Providence- means the physical, mental, and moral realms work out his purpose, and this purpose is nothing short of the original design of God in creation. To be sure evil has entered the universe, but it is not allowed to thwart God’s original benevolent, wise and holy purpose. Much more could be said.
But God RULES OVER THE NATIONS!! That includes their LFW or their LifFreedom!! If that is what they have. Still my investigation at this time. But can you see GOD RULES OVER THE NATIONS and their AUTONOMOUS LFWILLS!!
Job 12:32 – He makes nations great, and destroys them; He enlarges nations, and guides them.
Are we really going to say that autonomous libertarian free will that is independent of God is not involved with the verse above according to the Non-Calvinists.
Billions upon billions of wills of individuals are involved but God makes nations Great and he destroys them. THE GOD WHO FOH SAYS HIS MAIN NUMBER ONE ATTRIBUTE IS LOVE GOD DESTROYS NATIONS!!
As far as God is Holy and God is love. It is a matter of semantics. God is great But no where does it tell us in the word of God to be great. A little interruption here.
Just like FOH says the Word of God says God is love but no where does it tell us to be love. I could probably find many many examples of this.
Job 36:26 – Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.———Just like where it says God is love here it says God is great. I think FOH is wrong in saying that love is the greatest attribute of God. I think we need to adore the Godhead as a whole.
Back to the subject at hand:
Daniel 4:34-35 – 34 And at the end of the time 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.
35 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?”
Notice verse 24 talks about God’s dominion that is an everlasting dominion and His kingdom that is from generation from generation. Not LFW. No, God through the authority of the Word of God says man compared to Him is as “NOTHING” God does what he wants, when and where he wants among the inhabitants of the earth. It has so been decreed!!
Lamentations 3:38 – Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
It will be said, here is a gotcha verse. People, this verse is in the Word of God. It is there. You cannot dismiss it and look to your favorite love mercy verses. This verse actually coincides with Job in:
Job 2:10 – But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
God is the author of sin. What you say? I do not mean he is the originator of it but he directs and uses it for good purposes. No matter what anyone says. That is exactly what happened with Joseph being sold by His brothers into slavery then ultimately ending up in Egypt.
What they MEANT for evil, God MEANT for good!!! To save many people alive from starvation. God used Satan and Joseph’s brother’s as second causes/agents to accomplish God’s purpose. I stand so amazed at how Dr. Flowers and others just will not admit the plain reading of God’s Holy Word. A School boy can understand it!!
Isaiah 7:20 – 17 The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house–days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.” 18 And it shall come to pass in that day That the Lord will whistle for the fly That is in the farthest part of the rivers of Egypt, And for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 They will come, and all of them will rest In the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks, And on all thorns and in all pastures. 20 In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor, With those from beyond the River, with the king of Assyria, The head and the hair of the legs, And will also remove the beard.
The Lord WILL BRING THE KING OF ASSYRIA UPON YOU….that is not just the King but his military make up of many many men with WILLS. Does God violate the King’s and the King’s military LFW?
Because it says the Lord will bring the King of Assyria upon you……Psalms 21:1 – The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wills.
There is your answer!! It is the HAND OF THE LORD that is the subject here that the king’s heart is in at all times. The Word of God does not say OTHERWISE! Not to mention the king is just a man, so I do not see any man in exception to this verse. Just in different ways when it comes to evil and good.
Isaiah 10 – 5 “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. 6 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. 7 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.
Look at this. First we actually have a “WOE to Assyria” That is always not good when coming from God. But God uses evil or sin or evil persons or even nations to punish other evil people or nations and then punishes the nations that he used for the evil that was in their hearts.
It was decreed of the Lord
Isaiah 10:22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, A remnant of them will return; The destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness. 23 For the Lord God of hosts Will make a determined end In the midst of all the land.
But if Assyria had “autonomous LFW independent of God they could have done OTHERWISE than what God decreed them to do. But it seemed what God decreed prevailed!!
Isaiah 45:7 – I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (Calamity): I the LORD do all these things.
In another verse it says “does calamity or evil happen to a city, is it not I the Lord who does it.
Amos 3:6 – Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Someone says on here whenever this verse is mentioned someone brings something up like 9/11. They act like there mentioning it a negative way refutes the fact that God decreed it to happen. Or do they think God is some kind of deist who just sit idly by and watch it happen. Evil on 9/11 for no purpose whatsoever with the Holy Loving Omnipotent God being entertained on His Holy Throne in Heaven. No, God in His Holy Wise Providence is overseeing, ruling, governing and overturning evil for good in all things. God working all things according to HIS PURPOSE by the COUNCIL OF HIS WILL!! Not LFW!!
More to come
Hi JUSKLNTIME2442,
You site Amos 3:6, and read it into your understanding that all evil that happens in a city must come from God, which must (If I am understanding you correctly) include, rape, murder, drunkenness, blasphemy, lying, cheating, theft and so on? But that is not the understanding of that verse according to most scholars.
The TSK (Treasury of Scripture Knowledge) describe the verse as following.
“a trumpet: Jer_4:5, Jer_6:1; Eze_33:3; Hos_5:8; Zep_1:16
and the people: Jer_5:22, Jer_10:7; 2Co_5:11
be afraid: or, run together
shall there: That is, Shall there be any evil, or calamity (not moral evil), inflicted on a wicked city, which does not proceed from me, as the effect of my wrath? These animated interrogatives were intended to convince the people that they had cause for alarm, as their monstrous iniquities called down the vengeance of God to punish them with these calamities. Gen_50:20; Isa_14:24-27, Isa_45:7; Act_2:23, Act_4:28
the Lord hath not done it: or, and shall not the Lord do somewhat”
The context of Amos 3 is the wickedness of Israel, and the Lord’s charge that He will inflict punishment (evil) on them for their wickedness.
The verse is not saying that every bit of wickedness that happens in the city is done by the Lord. That would be blasphemy to say that.
The Lord does not cause moral evil to then morally overturn it for good.That is absolute slander to the Lord to say that about the Lord. God is not like that and neither did the apostles ever preach that.
“And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just” Romans 3:8
Thanks.
Damon.
Damon GRibble
“The Lord does not cause moral evil to then morally overturn it for good.That is absolute slander to the Lord to say that about the Lord.”
Isaiah 53:10 – Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. ESV
Isaiah 53:10 – But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. NKJV
Kevin My Response
Here in Isaiah 53:10 we read in the NKJV and the ESV that it was the Lord’s will and that it pleased the Lord to crush Christ. For Jesus to be murdered upon the Cross.
I think that is safe to say that the “murdering of Christ the greatest most wicked sin in history is “moral evil” that (pleased God and God willed) But it was decreed by God and accomplished through second causes/agents not by the direct hand of God.
Acts 2:23 – 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;
Kevin my response
Jesus was delivered over to those who would murder him by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God to be crucified/murdered by lawless hands of wicked sinners.
Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.’ 27 “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 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.
Kevin My response
Again, In the murder of Jesus, the wicked did (whatever God’s hand and purpose determined beforehand to be done.
1 kings 22:20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”
Kevin My response
Look, read the passage carefully. The Lord sent a LYING SPIRT, a demonic lying spirit into the mouth of the prophets to decieve and God said the lying spirit would prevail. That is moral evil. But God did not do it. But he did desire it to happen. If you want to know why read on. There are a lot more passages like this that the Non-Calvinists accsuse the Calvinist using gotcha or proof text as if these verses should just be over looked and one’s tradition should prevail.
It is not all cut and dry as we think. I am lost somewhere in between Dammon. I cannot just rest on philosophy alone. There is more to this Eternal God than I think we all know.
But you may be correct and I may be completely wrong. Keep me in your prayers and thanks Damon
Hi Jskln:
I do not have time to interact with all you have posted but I will briefly give you something to consider.
You quote:
Lam 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
First lets look at the word translated evil…here is what Strongs says is the meaning of the word in Hebrew…”adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief”
Second lets look at the context what kind of “affliction, calamity or great grief is in focus”?
The very next verse tells us that it is “punishment for man’s sins”.
Lam 3:39 Why should a living man complain, a man, about the punishment of his sins?
Yes, God is the one who brings punishment/calamity/adversity for sins and yes, it is bad for the sinner, it is a huge calamity, it is great grief and affliction, it is bad for the sinner and it is summed up in the english word “evil”.
So let’s read the verse you posted with the next verse as well and see if it makes sense, while also preserving the absolute holiness of God.
Lam 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not EVIL and good?
Lam 3:39 Why should a living man complain, a man, about the PUNISHMENT of HIS SINS?
For me it is clear that God is not the author of MORAL evil but yes HE does punish sin and HIS punishment is a huge calamity, a great grief and really really bad for the sinner…which is what is being said in context with the use of the word “evil”.
Looking at strongs it is likely a better word could have been chosen to translate the hebrew word into english, however if you look carefully it is still quite obvious what is meant.
Many of the other verses you post follow the same pattern. Blessings GA
You may very well be correct GraceAdict. As I am learning that there are more than one way of seeing things here. Thanks for your honest reply
GraceAdict , like and thank you.
JUSKLNTIME 2442,
Similar to Grace Adict time is limited to respond in perspective and angel of ‘challenges’ worthy of a response.
(As to time this is actually the second time I am writing this as I wanted to post last night but it was lost. Phone went dead while writing.) Anyway…..
JUSKLNTIME2442 said : I think that is safe to say that the “murdering of Christ the greatest most wicked sin in history is “moral evil” that (pleased God and God willed) But it was decreed by God and accomplished through second causes/agents not by the direct hand of God.
Response, because of how I see you trying to work things out in wording:
God does not sin.
God upholds His own good standard to include 2 or 3 witnesses of truth, evidentionally.
Sin is unseen and is a matter of the heart and mind.God perfectly knows and judges the motive of the heart and mind.
Sin is determined as defined, judged and punished by God.
The act of killing does not by necessity equate to a heart and mind for murder but murder is accounted to the one guilty of sin held responsible for sin and death.
God is triune. Jesus Christ in Truth, being the Son of God, was the only begotten Son of Man of God.
Jesus Christ was made to be the victim for us. God governs according to the mind governed by the Holy Spirit.
God paid (in full),the free will offering of the only unblemished/without defect Victim(The Lamb of God) in Truth, according to God who is perfect in His standard, revealed. Mankind made Jesus Christ a victim by abusing the law( of the land) to murder/torture the innocent.
God’s unfathomable ways, revealed to us as that we may apprehend, but could never full comprehend as EVIDENTALLY we are not God-
1 Peter 1:18-20 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
In Revelations 13:8 “the Lamb was slain from the creation of the world”
Thinking of the book of Job, about things you mentioned I would suggest a word search on “skin” and within the context of the book the Spirit of Christ, being the Spirit of Truth, found in Elihu-chapeter 32-37, before God answers Job our of the whirlwind, to then revealed the end, as prophetically revealed in the repeated pattern of scripture. Who and how are those blessed by a friend at the end?
—————
A lesson of David and the census: Do not count God’s fighting/battle men!
The result of rebuke so that there MAY be repentance for reconciliation:
2 Samuel 24:14 Then David said to Gad, “I am in great distress. Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of man.”
David feared and trusted in the mercy(love) of God: 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
————–
( My opinion- One of the things I appreciate about Soteriology 101: It is not counting fighting men, but gives evidence it believes God knows the heart and mind of those who believe the good news we confess, yet, is willing to challenge those claiming to contend for the faith in truth to defend the Good News. Against the spirit of Calvinistic determinism, interestingly, it is bringing forward the opposite side of the spectrum it also gives evidence to contend against: the false idea of deterministic philosophy that all people will be universally saved.
(Scholarly) proclaiming christian statistician should be careful about counting fighting/battle men and our fear and trust should not be in such numbers. Jesus said the flesh counts for nothing. This is the command given to us who believe proclaim about our blessed hope: Ephesians 6:10-20
…23 Peace be to the brothers,and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible.
As we wake up and repent for the sins that so easily entangle us:Death is (still) our timely enemy. 1 Corinthians 15:*1-4…. 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
Just thinking…..# coronavirus twitter …. it never gets better for ‘the people'( of the politic that abuses the law, populace, polite citizen) before the Lord returns on His Day- Daniel 2. We, His reconciled children ( Ephesians 1-3) are the only citizenship(left in the world) ENTRUSTED to contend for The Faith- ambassadors to proclaim and preach THE GOOD NEWS! (who have been prepared ahead of time- Jesus prayer, the living and active world of God: John 17)
Practical theology about doctrines revealed.
JUSKLNTIME2442 said:
Kevin My Response
Here in Isaiah 53:10 we read in the NKJV and the ESV that it was the Lord’s will and that it pleased the Lord to crush Christ. For Jesus to be murdered upon the Cross.
My son suffered an incident that may have further saved his life and others.I was not pleased about why he suffered. I was pleased that he was crushed because of how it worked out to ultimately save. ( Analogy, limited within the human realm.)
What has been determined and decreed does not equal the mind of human deterministic philosophy for God who reveals He is able to work and does work: Romans8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[h] for those who are called according to his purpose.
God is living and active- according to HIs standard( revealed is scripture, according to His Holy Spirit.)
God accounted for the S(s)pirit and the (F)flesh, perfectly, and has won the victory over our Enemy, still of sin and death.
The culmination/end of the ages/consummation- the pin point, marked, Jesus death on the cross.
Who is “so loved” and how?
Who has the right to be called a child of God?
God instructs-
John 12:49-50
49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
John 3:12-21
Numbers 21:4-9
This is how the practicality of relationship works about things living and active:
1 Corinthians 15:*1-4
God holds the power and ability and the keys of things that are crossed over and covered over.
Relationship involves at least 2, actively. God instructs on what it is to REMAIN His enemy or come to be His friend.
Romans 5/John3- the workmanship(masterpiece) of God is a man born of the flesh given the Holy Spirit for work prepared in advance Ephesians 2. What’s the work/baptism worth suffering? 1 Corinthians 15
Only one is good: GOD
Even evil MEN know how to give good gifts to their children. It is because of God mankind can experience good, even while evil, hopefully to see God, that they may be justified if they seek to find He is Good, Him never the evil one, according to His revelation.(.. his sheep are found.)
Our Mediator warns us how we think to reason about what we see and hear, beforehand: Matthew 24:23-25
23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
God is not deceived, but man can be self deceived that he/she is one in The Elect, chosen to share The Message, Eternal Life.
The Spirit of Truth is Good.
(This is a walk with you, taking the long way around the block after listening to how you think to reason.)
J. Edwards refutation of LFW
“The libertarians whom Edwards encountered insisted that the will
must exercise a certain sovereignty over itself whereby it determines or
causes itself to act and choose. Whereas the will may be influenced by
antecedent impulses or desires, it always retains an independent power
to choose contrary to them. The will is free from any necessary causal
connection to anything antecedent to the moment of choice.
Edwards finds this argument both incoherent and subject to an infinite regress. He points out that for the will to determine itself is for the
will to act. Thus the act of will whereby it determines a subsequent act
must itself be determined by a preceding act of will or the will cannot
properly be said to be self-determined. If libertarianism is to be maintained, every act of will that determines a consequent act is itself preceded by an act of will, and so on until one comes to a first act of will.
But if this first act is determined by a preceding one, it is not itself the
first act. If, on the other hand, this act is not determined by a previous
act, it cannot be free since it is not self-determined. If the first act of Volition is not itself determined by a preceding act of will, that so-called first
act is not determined by the will and is thus not free. Edwards’s point is that if the will chooses its choice or determines
its own acts, it must be supposed to choose to choose this choice, and
before that it would have to choose to choose to choose that choice,
and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, the concept of freedom as selfdetermination either contradicts itself by positing an unchosen (i.e.,
non-self-determined) choice or shuts itself wholly out of the world by
an infinite regress
Quite apart from the philosophical gobbledy-gook that passes for wisdom, what the average Joe understands is that the distinction of importance is whether or not men are truly free to choose or whether all things have been irresistibly predetermined by God. If the latter, by whatever means, all an individual ever thinks, believes or does has been decided by an outside force, that being God.
Most of us, as per the excellent post, would reject the meaninglessness of life that predetermination necessarily creates. We view God’s reaching out to us via prophets, words and the incarnation of his Son as demonstrating that we have not only great value, but genuine choices that can lead to either the redemption and life made possible by God or death by our rejection thereof.
As narrative after narrative reveals, our lives have meaning, and our choices lead to God-inspired healing and blessing, or to increasing sin and sorrow. ‘Choose you this day’ did not end with Joshua, but has been the challenge that God presents to every individual of sound mind.
Those who would embrace the compulsive nature of Calvinistic election do so at the sacrifice of all that is meaningful in life, including freedom and love. In their desire for security, they sacrifice a truly meaningful life and the blessed joy of freely receiving all that God freely offers.
Nice post TSOO, although I was just giving Johnathan Edwards reasoning for rejecting LFW. Just for us to think upon and hopefully some good feedback on it. It was labeled as pompous and incomprehensible. Not just saying it was pompous and incomprenhensible.
I was hoping for some interaction from a Non-Calvinist directly. I found it interesting.
I also listed quite a few verses with comments.
No I am not saying everything we say, think, desire ect is decreed of God.
Proverbs 20:24 – Man’s steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way?
Psalm 119:59
I considered my ways And turned my feet to Your testimonies.
Jeremiah 10:23: “I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.”
I see both concepts in places within the Bible. God’s decree and it being accomplished directly by God if it is God working within the Christian that which is pleasing in His sight
and I see God decreeing evil that he does not delight in but he desire to come to pass like the murder of Christ or David numbering Israel. God uses Second causes/agents like Satan or the hands of lawless men to murder Christ.
TS00
‘Choose you this day’
xx TS00- About this, worshipping with you at the feet of Jesus… like the women who publicly kissed the feet of Jesus infront of the Pharisees. Her giving her free will offering.
Forgiven, she obviously didn’t have need to be concerned with perfect table manners :-), being not about those who did not have true manners towards their guest.
Blessings
EDWARDS AND LIBERTARIANISM
The libertarians10 whom Edwards encountered insisted that the will
must exercise a certain sovereignty over itself whereby it determines or
causes itself to act and choose. Whereas the will may be influenced by
antecedent impulses or desires, it always retains an independent power
to choose contrary to them. The will is free from any necessary causal
connection to anything antecedent to the moment of choice.
Edwards finds this argument both incoherent and subject to an infinite regress. He points out that for the will to determine itself is for the
will to act. Thus the act of will whereby it determines a subsequent act
must itself be determined by a preceding act of will or the will cannot
properly be said to be self-determined. If libertarianism is to be maintained, every act of will that determines a consequent act is itself preceded by an act of will, and so on until one comes to a first act of will.
But if this first act is determined by a preceding one, it is not itself the
first act. If, on the other hand, this act is not determined by a previous
act, it cannot be free since it is not self-determined. If the first act of volition is not itself determined by a preceding act of will, that so-called first
act is not determined by the will and is thus not free.
Edwards’s point is that if the will chooses its choice or determines
its own acts, it must be supposed to choose to choose this choice, and
before that it would have to choose to choose to choose that choice,
and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, the concept of freedom as selfdetermination either contradicts itself by positing an unchosen (i.e.,
non-self-determined) choice or shuts itself wholly out of the world by
an infinite regress.
Hi JUSKLNTIME2442,
I wasn’t able to reply below the relevant statement so I have had to do it here. I just want to look at this statement where you said –
JUSKLNTIME2442,
“But it cannot be denied here that God used Satan as an instrument, a second cause/agent to accomplish his intended purpose which was to punishe David and Israel. Why in this manner we are not told. Satan moved and enticed David becaused he is sin personified and Satan is God’s Devil who does as God commands.”
My Reply – I am in agreement with you in this case that God used Satan’s wickedness to teach David a valuable lesson. But I disagree with you on how God did it. Nowhere does it say that God commanded Satan to entice David to sin. Satan wasn’t waiting for the command from God. You have read that into it because that is what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches that Satan is basically God’s hand puppet to accomplish His purposes. They call it “second causes” to try and shift the blame away from God. Kind of like if I paid a man to do a murder, I can then say it wasn’t me who murdered, it was the “second cause” that did it, not me.
Satan actually does things against God’s commands as do all evil doers.
Satan would have been always trying to entice David to sin because that is who he is. He doesn’t have to wait for the commandment of God to do so.
God can place David in a situation where he could be enticed by Satan to sin, but that doesn’t mean that God then commanded Satan to carry out what God “secretly” wanted David to do. Again that’s blasphemy.
Here’s an example – Hypothetically -If I push my wayward disobedient drunkard son out the door of my house knowing that he is going to sin, does that imply that I endorse the sin? and want him to sin? No, not at all. I may know that he is going to go leave with his mates and write himself off on alcohol maybe to the point of death. But I do it it anyway to teach him a lesson. Just because I put him in a situation where I knew that he would sin does in no way say that I endorse the sin or caused him to sin.
This statement of yours – “Satan is God’s Devil who does as God commands.” is concerning, when it actually is Satan breaking all of God’s commands. Satan is a liar because God says don’t lie. Satan is a thief because God says don’t steal and so on. Satan is not God’s apprentice.
Thanks JUSKLNTIME2442
Damon
Thanks Damon that is a good reply that definitely gives me something to think about.
Hi JUSKLNTIME2442,
1 John 2:15-17; NASB:
“Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.”
If free will doesn’t exist, then these verses are nonsensical. If you have free will, then stop listening to men and start listening to God. Question: – Could they choose to love the world? Could they choose not to love the Father? If so, how so? Connect the command in verse 15 with verse 17 and answer this, “Which ones chose to do the will of God?” According to these verses, “How much of the world and it’s lusts thereof are of the Father?” Exercise your LWF and stop listening to rubbish!
Thanks Aidan McManus I will take into consideration your exhortation. Thank you for you for replying back,
Hi Aidan McManus,
Thanks for commenting. I think you made a good point. I do think if you believe in autonomous LFW you would believe I am already exercising it. Which you have a point.
Can wicked sinners who hate God and are hostile to God just “do otherwise” and exercise their LFW and stop loving the world, stop exercising their autonomous LFW that is independent of God and no longer indulge in the flesh , or the lust of the eyes, or stop engaging in boastful pride. This includes within the heart also. As you know Jesus said a man can look upon a woman and he has already committed lust within his heart before he even exercised his autonomous LFW externally. How much power does this autonomous LFW have in the life of the wicked sinner who hates Christ who is the light and loves voluntary the darkness of his sins.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Thanks for interacting with me. Because I have found that what I think may seem to be right until another answers back and reveals to me something I did not know. So thank you for your patience with me. You may or may not know I am struggling with all of this. So that is the reason for the questions.
God bless Kevin
Please do not take any of my comments as being rude or as sarcasm. I am just trying to understand your point of view on this issue.
So the wicked evil sinner who is hostile and hates God, whose will is free and not impeded. He or she can freely exercise his autonomous LFW in his sinful wicked state and obey the commandment you mentioned above about loving God and not the World, not committing the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes or the pride of life. All of this while being a wicked sinner. He or she just needs to exercise the autonomous LFW as you exhorted me?
Thanks for patience again and I look forward to you clarifying. God bless Sir.
Perhaps you are sincere in your quest to understand, but cannot you see how framing the question in this way poisons the well of discussion and leaves us without tangible evidence you are sincere? You weigh the question completely in your favor, making it so that any answer contrary to the one you expect seems absurd, and then want us to believe the question is sincere. Perhaps try understanding our position in our terms first?
Eric….What would you like for me to do? Seems like a little drive by to expose me and put me in my place. Not angry or offended. I understand this is the way you feel. Now others will follow you and defend you and attack me saying I am not being sincere but being a liar and deceptive as you have emphatically said so while trying to sound like you are giving me the benefit of the doubt..
But your real motive and intention is loud and clear!
So my cordial conversations that have been respectful have now come to and end. BC I know that it can be like a pack of wolves on here when one is singled out. That is a shame.
Eric said and I quote: “Perhaps you are sincere in your quest to understand, but cannot you see how framing the question in this way poisons the well of discussion and leaves us without tangible evidence you are sincere?”
Kevin
You cannot say “perhaps I am sincere” then go on in a condescending way saying the rest of what you did in the way that you did. You mean I am lying and dishonest. Just say it. I am not angry. I feel God has helped me not to be so offended on here. Although I do feel GOD brought you my way to test me and it was not by chance.
There are places in the Bible where God does this very thing Eric. You know I can show you this.
But does he decree every single word, desire, thought and action.? At this time I am going to have to hear a better argument from a Calvinist perspective. BC right now I just do not see it.
Eric said:
“Framing the questions in a way that poisons the well”
“So that it leaves us with out tangible evidence that I am sincere.”
Kevin My response
The very way you framed that sentence by starting saying “perhaps I am sincere” then finishing it by saying I am “poisoning the well” (leaves us without) “tangible evidence” that I am being sincere that your first comment that “perhaps I am sincere” was just (empty words) and you mean I am just full of evil malice and here playing games with a lying dishonest heart.
Look at those who have come out of Calvinism. Flowers, FOH. Maybe it happened in a day for them Eric. I am sorry that it is not happening in that manner for me and I have questions. Is it BC I question the articles and form my questions to what I feel might be a weakness within the Non-Calvinist understanding of LFW? That does not mean I am right in what I think, That is the reason for the question.
Eric you now have on this website, (if I am able to stay now since you have “called me out”) Non-Calvinist, those who are not sure, but may lean to some Calvinist aspects, and the real Calvinist.
Eric said and I quote: “You weigh the question completely in your favor, making it so that any answer contrary to the one you expect seems absurd, and then want us to believe the question is sincere.”
In what way do I do this Eric. I feel the answers I have received have been good answers. I am not as dogmatic but more open now than I was. But Eric, Rome was not built in a day.
Eric when I was on here before, (Before you mentioned I cannot last 5 mns) I was hardcore Calvinist and you know that I fought tooth and nail. You and I had a personal discussion on John 6. When we got down to John 6:37 -44 and you tried to tell me and convince me that there were at least 3 or 4 verbs (believe, draw, give) that meant almost the same and were interchangeable. I never said you were being deceitful. I mean these were verbs that had different definitions in the Greek and English. I had never seen that approach to getting around the hard difficult verses for Non-Calvinists before. I spoke to you with respect but in disagreement. Never believed you were being deceptive or dishonest. With that approach I could have.
Eric, I do not think I believe now that God has decreed every thought, desire, word, or action.
I once used the example of the going to the mail box. You must have missed it.
I said I do not think that God decreed from all eternity for me to to the mail box.
Eric did you not read that???? Did you Eric??
I actually lean exactly where BRD took me. To the fact that we have free will in this manner. I am sorry that you cannot believe this of me but instead want to accuse me of poisoning the well and being dishonest.
I know in the past on here Eric I was down right rude which I know most think that this is typical of Calvinist. I was very sinful toward you also. I have asked you to forgive me. You probably did not think I am sincere in this either. More than anything Eric I feel God has used this forum in the sanctification process of my life.
You know the way I really feel about it all Eric. I wish I had never heard about Calvinism and Non-Calvinism and just focused on Christ and walking worthy of the Gospel. It is like YOU, yes you Eric and others are so consumed with this one subject that is the object that commands all your attention.
You know what though. It has been true of ME also. I am trying to undo this and get and get back to my first love who is Christ.
But who can deny the subject is interesting. We should study to know the truth of God so that it strengthens our faith in Christ. Not questioning one’s heart when we ultimately cannot see it. Only God can.
I really feel BRD is my friend, who has not questioned my motives. But who is straight-forward and blunt and will call me out if necessary. He has and I have explained to him the way I am going about this. Asking questions from a Calvinists perspective.
I have also talked to BRD about Non-Calvinist Scholars and theologians that I have been reading Eric. Those he has recommended and even sent me links to read and I have read every one of them.
I use to disagree with Dr. Flowers on John 20:31 BC I thought it was talking only of signs and miracles. But further study has made me think that I could be wrong.
To be honest, in my opinion, I feel you felt the need to come out and say something this time while I was still here and not after I left BC maybe things were not going as you wanted them to with me. I am not here to make trouble Eric. Can you not see that BRD has shaken my faith in Calvinism Eric? No you think I am lying and being dishonest.
I guess using this this “so-called quest in being sincere to understand” is really a (cloak to really disprove Non-Calvinism.) I am sure that is what you are getting at after saying “perhaps I am sincere”
If it is my strategy, I am doing a terrible job at it.
Can I not look at the answers I am given and then respond with another question Eric?
Just yesterday after I gave my last two comments. I was thinking that it seems like so much vanity and wasting time. I was even considering no longer commenting. But I like discussing theology. But it should be in moderation.
I told you why I frame my questions the way I do Eric.
That is by saying I am poisoning the well by the way I am framing my questions you think I am not being sincere but being deceitful and lying.
I cannot win with you.
I guess you have not been paying attention how many times I have engaged with BRD. How many times I have had to concede and admit that his argumentation was stronger than mine. Is that poisoning the well Eric?
I guess you did not read or paying close attention to what I wrote when I told BRD that I would be asking questions from a Calvinist perspective to see the Non-Calvinist answers to weight them against the Word of God.
I do in fact see teaching on here that I find wrong and disagree with. Not exactly with Non-Calvinism or Calvinism. In General. I feel I question an assertion or teaching on here, it will not go down good with you.
I also just enjoy discussing theology Eric. And I have really enjoyed it up until your comment. Not offended just disappointed.
Like the questions I asked last night which must have brought you out of the wood-work.
Eric can you give some examples where I am lying and being deceitful, framing my questions in ways that it poisons the well, and weigh the question completely in my favor, making it so that any answer to the contrary is absurd (I personally think I have had good answers on here to my question, you are poisoning the well here) and then I am so desperate wanting all of you to believe that I am sincere.
Really, I would like you to respond to the above question. Since you are questioning my integrity.
I can almost guarantee you now that you have opened the door questioning my integrity and calling me a dishonest liar others will follow. That is just not right in the eyes of God.
I have had respectful cordial conversation with every one for a long time now.
I think you are trying to poison the well here myself. BC you know as well as I do there will be others who will follow your lead and start questioning my sincerity and saying I am being deceptive.
Eric, everyone but you. Why? What is your real motive? I question your intentions here. Prove to me your accusations that I am a lying deceptive real Calvinist just using the words “I am sincere and not sure of the truth of all this” as a cloak to lie and deceive to get my points of Calvinism across. And that I frame my questions so that the answers seem absurd. Actually your whole comment I would like for you to respond and clarify with some tangible evidence.
Can you show me tangible evidence of this?
Before you do, remember I said I would be framing my questions in a Calvinists perspective to get Non-Calvinist answers. I am sorry you are having a hard time with that.
There may be times I still sound like a real Calvinist. I still lean toward Calvinist Soteriology but not so much Calvinist Determinism.
You know what it seems like Eric. I cannot read your heart but out of the abundance of your mouth the heart speaks.
You had all you could take of my deception of trying to look sincere. So someone had to put me in my place and you decided it was going to be you. My opinion only.
Eric says and I quote: “Perhaps try understanding our position in our terms first?”
Kevin My Response
I am not the brightest but I surely understand your position Eric as I did when you and I discussed John 6. Now there are times I do struggle understanding BRD I admit he is very intelligent. Yes I am being sincere in saying that ERIC.
I really wish you and I could get along. I know I like Trump 2020. 🙂 Joking.
Tell me how you want me to interact on here Eric so I am not being deceptive and dishonest. I will try and follow your example of integrity. Give me some guidance as to where I am lying and being deceptive. Who knows maybe I am self-deceived or deceived by Satan. Pray for me. Feel like I cannot ask anything that will not be perceived as being dishonest.
It was good to hear from you though Eric.
I want you to keep one thing in mind as you form your judgments of me.
Since age 32 when I read John 6 that started me down the road to Calvinism. Never heard of it before. I then found a book at a used book store by R.C. Sproul entitled “Chosen by God”
No one taught me about it as is the claim from Non-Calvinist (right on Soteriology101 this assertion is made) that no one comes to know about Calvinism unless they are taught by another. This is the testimony of thousands of others also. I know this looks like where I am cloaking myself in sincerity to push the Calvinist agenda. I am just making a truth statement of fact. Most are taught though, that is correct as even more are taught to be Non-Calvinist.
So for some 20 years this is what I have believed. It has not what has dominated my Christian Life. I have been more consumed with the Doctrine of Sanctification and Justification in Christ which than Calvinism. Being “predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ” is the Holy desire of my heart, to be pleasing to the God of my Salvation.
But can you imagine someone who has believed something for some 20 years now beginning to question his beliefs? He is going to be a little messed up in his head as he is now questioning everything and it does not help to be called a liar and dishonest.
Maybe it was all orchestrated by the Satan and I was deceived.
Something else you did not take into consideration Kemp. I am not the one who made his whole comment about “exercising LFW to keep the commandments of God.”
I was just taking it to its logical conclusion, if it is all about “exercising LFW which wicked sinners who hate God have” as you do.
Then why can they not just do the same? It was not me who made this the issue about autonomous LFW independent from God. The individual in his comment did.
We all have this autonomous LFW so why is question out of bounds. I am seeking out what else he believes in connection with LFW.
That is all.
I was just taking it to its logical conclusion.
Hi Kevin,
Sorry, I was away since last week and am only coming to your responses now. And yes, I did see that you are struggling as I struggled coming out of Catholicism many years ago. I am sure there are also a few here who have had their own struggles coming out of Calvinism, who know exactly what you are having to deal with. My best advice to you is not to get overly dependent on any man, as we are all fallible human beings. But examine everything carefully against the word of God to see if what they are telling you is true (Acts 17:11). “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ ” (Matt 4:4). Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths (Prov. 3:5-6). These scriptures apply to all of us.
In your question you quoted John 3:19 , “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”
Take these verses at face value: Why were these evil men condemned (vs 19)? Was it because they were ‘unable’ to see the light and come to the light? Or was it because of the reasons Jesus gave? And if so, what were the reasons Jesus gave? Inability or unwillingness?
Acts 17: 30; “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,”
Mark 16: 15 “And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Does God want the gospel to be preached to every creature? If the gospel is to be preached to every creature (all men), who does it exclude? Does that same gospel call “every creature” to repent to whom it is being preached? If so, who does God not want to repent and live? When God says ‘Yes,’ does He mean ‘Yes’? And when God says, ‘No,’ does He mean ‘No’? If so, what does He desire “every creature” do when calling on them to repent through the gospel? Are these questions helpful?
Is a wicked man able to turn from his wickedness to serve God? Absolutely:
“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” (Ezek. 18:21,23).
(Ezek. 18:27-28):
“Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. “Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”
Notice, he turns, he considers, he preserves himself alive. I’m only repeating what the verse says! This is not earning salvation, but repentance from sin and obedience to God. This man still needed mercy and forgiveness for those sins which he committed by trusting in a merciful God. God was only too happy that he turned from his ways to live (v.23).
Rule of thumb:
Take words to mean what they normally mean until something in the context FORCES you to take it otherwise. For example, when Jesus said, “I am meek and lowly” we take that at face value and understand what He is saying. But when He says, “I am the door” or, when He called Herod a “fox” we know that it would be absurd to take that literally. And because we know that Jesus is not a literal door, or Herod a literal fox, we are then forced to take the meaning of those words as metaphors to symbolize something.
Excellent and thought-provoking comment, Aiden. The verses you noted are among countless verses that suggest the same idea – God desires men to turn from wickedness and promises to forgive them when they do. To twist this most precious truth into a limited, predetermined chosen few is the most heinous deception that has ever infected Christianity.
God needs Reprobation for HIS glory…As some of our favorite Calvinists say:
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.”
“Reprobation…should it be asked why God does this, the answer must be, To promote His own glory, that is, the glory of His justice, power and wrath. ‘The sum of the apostle’s answer here is, that the grand object of God, both in the election and the reprobation of men, is that which is paramount to all things else in the creation of men, namely, His own glory.’” AW Pink
JMac “if God showed Love and mercy to all people then He would be denying His holiness and if God showed His holiness and justice to all people then he would be denying His love and Grace”
JCalvin “How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance”
JCalvin “Many professing a desire to defend the Diety 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. Institutes Chap 3 par 1
“Individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify Him by their destruction”. Chap 23 par 6
I do agree it is a twisted view of Holy, Loving God.
Not the God I see in scriptures
Thanks TSOO. I do believe that Kevin is sincerely struggling with all of this right now. He will have to work out for himself the truth God has revealed in the scriptures, that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34). Nor that we should regard any man as common or unclean (Acts 10:28). But in every nation WHOEVER fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:35). If Peter and the others could work it out, so can we, if we just really listen to God and not men.
Hi Kevin (JUSKLNTIME2442)
Sorry I have to reply here again as i was unable to reply directly under a statement that you made.
“Kevin my response
Jesus was delivered over to those who would murder him by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God to be crucified/murdered by lawless hands of wicked sinners.”
Your statement here is correct in my understanding. Jesus was delivered over to wicked sinners who God in his foreknowledge knew would crucify Him. God determined to deliver Jesus over to this wickedness. But that doesn’t mean that God also determined the wickedness that He determined to hand Jesus over to. Again that’s blasphemy.
Kind of like placing Jesus in front of angry wicked man in a steam roller who God knows is going to crush him. But that doesn’t also mean that God determined the evil actions of the man in the steam roller.
“And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.” Romans 3:8
Thanks Kevin.
Damon.
This is off topic, but in reference to the author of this article’s comment that he served in a Provisionist church in Kentucky before moving to Colorado….
Would love to get a recommendation of a provisionist church that teaches Scripture faithfully and with depth in the Louisville area (a hotbed for Calvinism, where the alternative stripes seem to be either a bit shallow, or very works/standards based in comparison)… Basically looking for many of the great teachings that Calvinist churches challenge mature Christians with, but without the Calvinist undercurrent… Any referrals?
“Biblically, unconditional election renders much (if not all) of Jesus’s ministry a misinformation campaign.”
So true.
I could substitute; “Biblically, TULIP renders much (if not all) of Jesus’s ministry a misinformation campaign.”
I found this article thought provoking and I appreciate the information. I see determinism would make life completley lack of any real meaning!!.. And it would make any authentic connections within our lives void. Especially a true relationship with the Creator of the heavens and earth!!! I went to your blog Dale and I appreciate this statement;
“”The Bible should always stand above and over the doctrines that were derived from it. Otherwise, the tendency is to warp the understanding of specific texts to fit within the doctrinal boundaries. Let scripture interpret scripture, but let not doctrine interpret scripture.””
And this statement in your article on soteriology 101 above was one I really enjoyed!!!
“Determinism is a very sharp knife that cuts the meaning out of everything it touches.”
It sadly does and the fact that some don’t see it is just sad.
DWD writes, “Reformed theologians further elaborate this to mean that God determines or causes everything that happens; nothing happens without God being the decisive factor. This includes not only physical events, but also the thoughts, feelings and decisions of human beings.”
Determinism (Theological) entails that God is omniscient and that God knew the future of His creation perfectly before He created. In creating, God determined that which He knew was to happen. Dr. Flowers appears to agree that God is omniscient but rejects determinism. To him, God’s omniscience is shrouded in mystery. An alternative to determinism is to say that God does not have a perfect knowledge of all future events, and some have taken this path.
Hogwash! You say, since God knew what was going to happen before it happened, He then “determined that which He knew was to happen.” Your position makes no sense! If God knew in eternity all that was going to happen, then He couldn’t have determined afterward what was already going to happen. In essence what you’re really saying is, God determined nothing! And there I was thinking that you were a Calvinist!
Aidan writes, “You say, since God knew what was going to happen before it happened, He then “determined that which He knew was to happen”
If God knows the future perfectly (God is omniscient), then we can know that the future is certain even if we do not know what makes individual events necessary – God’s omniscient knowledge is not the cause of future events. However, we do know that something causes each future event as no future event happens spontaneously. As God puts everything in motion by creating, then God is the ultimate determiner of all future events as those events would not have happened had God not created the world but then we are told that God works all things according to the counsel of His will, so all things works toward God’s purpose.
Okay, I’ll sum up what you’ve said: So God knew what was going to happen, God knowing what was going to happen was not the cause of future events – but in creating the world He put everything in motion and is for that reason the cause of all future events. And that’s how you understand the statement – “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
This doesn’t sound very deterministic to me.
Aidan writes, “Okay, I’ll sum up what you’ve said: So God knew what was going to happen, God knowing what was going to happen was not the cause of future events – but in creating the world He put everything in motion and is for that reason the cause of all future events. And that’s how you understand the statement – “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.””
When we read, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” we can know that nothing can come about without God’s fingerprints on it (so to speak). It is true that God put into motion all that He knew was to happen when He created. However, He was still going to be active within His creation – He brought the flood of Noah, impregnated Mary with Jesus, resurrected Jesus from the tomb, etc. In addition, God used secondary means in working all things – He used Satan to tempt Adam/Eve, to get David to number Israel, and to test Job. God used the Jews ro crucify Christ and to stone Stephen. God draws some to Christ but not others, God gives faith to some but not to others. God does this with a perfect understanding of the impacts of His actions (i,e., His decrees) So, in every event in the history of God’s creation, we see God working all things that happen for His purpose and doing so according to the counsel of His will.
rhutchin,
So when God wrote the play, he wanted to be sure that he had a something to “do” in the play, so that he’s not just in the audience eating popcorn? I can’t wait for the academy awards. Does he have a British accent? LOL.
Ed Chapman
Good one. I’m afraid Calvi-God is going to sweep the Awards, as there is no category for Best Reprobate.
chapmaned24 writes, “So when God wrote the play, he wanted to be sure that he had a something to “do” in the play, so that he’s not just in the audience eating popcorn?”
Actually, God has a major role. Paul writes, “in [God] we live and move and have our being…” In Colossians, Paul speaks of God who, “…has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.” It is God who determined a person’s date of birth and date of death. There seems to be nothing so trivial in His creation that God ignores, but everything has a purpose and is used by God to accomplish His purpose. It seems that we are in the audience eating popcorn until God calls us to participate in His play.
Rhutchin writes:
“in [God] we live and move and have our being…”
Like a puppet on a string? No thanks!
Rhutchin writes: “in [God] we live and move and have our being…”
Aidan: Like a puppet on a string? No thanks!
Go complain to Paul. He’s the one who said it – preaching to the Greeks I think.
I’m sorry, but Paul never said or indicated in any way, shape, or form, that God has us like a puppet on a string.🧐
Aidan writes, ‘I’m sorry, but Paul never said or indicated in any way, shape, or form, that God has us like a puppet on a string.”
LOL!!! No, that is Aidan’s interpretation of that which Paul said, Paul said, “And [God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being,…”
Aidan writes, ‘I’m sorry, but Paul never said or indicated in any way, shape, or form, that God has us like a puppet on a string.”
Rhutchin writes, “LOL!!! No, that is Aidan’s interpretation of that which Paul said”
No! But that’s the Calvinist’s interpretation. In your original response to my statement above, you said : “Go complain to Paul. He’s the one who said it”🤖 Did you say that of your own volition?
Rhutchin: “in [God] we live and move and have our being…”
Aidan: Like a puppet on a string? No thanks!
Aidan: ‘I’m sorry, but Paul never said or indicated in any way, shape, or form, that God has us like a puppet on a string.”
Rhutchin: “LOL!!! No, that is Aidan’s interpretation of that which Paul said”
Aidan;”No! But that’s the Calvinist’s interpretation. In your original response to my statement above, you said : “Go complain to Paul. He’s the one who said it”�� Did you say that of your own volition?”
Paul said, “…in God we live and move and have our being…” Aidan interpreted this to mean that God has us like a puppet on a string. Go read the discussion.
To which you agreed when you said, Go complain to Paul, he’s the one that said it. And besides, you know very well that God determines all things according to Calvinism. Which means that there is nothing He doesn’t determine. Calvi-god is truly the puppet master is he not?
Aidan writes, “To which you agreed when you said, Go complain to Paul, he’s the one that said it.”
I was siding with Paul and against you.
If you were truly siding with Paul, then you wouldn’t have affirmed that God predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men. Paul would have agreed that the wicked have been given the freedom to choose good, and the good to choose evil.
Note how men can switch, AT WILL, from wickedness to righteousness, and then from righteousness to wickedness again!
Ezekiel 18:21-24
“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. “None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?”
“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.”
Note how it is God’s desire, and will, that ALL who are wicked should turn and live. Yet in spite of that, many do not! Why is that? FREE WILL – and the fact that God will not interfere in man’s free will choice to cooperate with Him or not. God has made all the provisions, it is totally up to us whether we choose life or choose death.
“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” (v.23).
No! God does not predetermine and micro-manage every single thought and action in men, because, if He did, all would be saved. Ezekiel 18:32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”
The message is – IT’S UP TO YOU!
Aidan writes, “If you were truly siding with Paul, then you wouldn’t have affirmed that God predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men. ”
I was siding with Paul when he said, “…in Him we live and move and have our being…” and against you when you interpreted Paul to mean, “Like a puppet on a string? No thanks!”
Then, “Paul would have agreed that the wicked have been given the freedom to choose good, and the good to choose evil.”
No. It was Paul who distinguished the righteous and the wicked on the basis of faith. The wicked have no faith and Paul describes them in Romans 3 this way, ““There is none righteous, no, not one;..There is none who does good, no, not one.” In Romans 8, Paul describes the person without faith as “those in the flesh” and says, “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.” In saying that those in the flesh cannot please God, Paul emphasizes what we read in Hebrews 11, “…without faith it is impossible to please God…”
Paul would not have agreed with your statement, “Note how men can switch, AT WILL, from wickedness to righteousness, and then from righteousness to wickedness again!”
The Calvinist has correctly understood the role of faith in Paul’s theology and incorporated into their own.
Then, “Note how it is God’s desire, and will, that ALL who are wicked should turn and live. Yet in spite of that, many do not! Why is that? FREE WILL…”
Only partially. A free will without faith will not turn from wickedness. A free will with faith will turn from wickedness.
Then, “God has made all the provisions, it is totally up to us whether we choose life or choose death.”
It is God who sends His prophets (i.e., preachers) into the world to preach the gospel. But God does not send them everywhere in the world as many have not heard the gospel. It is God who conveys faith to a person through the hearing of the gospel, but there are many who have not heard the gospel and who have no faith. God has made provision for His elect to hear the gospel and receive faith, and it is His elect who choose life. It is impossible for a person without faith to choose life. This is a key point that the Calvinist understands.
Then, “God does not predetermine and micro-manage every single thought and action in men, because, if He did, all would be saved.”
No one can be saved unless God has decreed a preacher to preach the gospel to him and decreed the conveyance of faith to a person to whom the gospel is preached. God determines who will be saved and no one can be saved without God’s help. That is why Paul writes, “God who has begun a good work in you…” Jesus also says this when He says, “No one can come to Me…” and then allows an exception based on God’s action when He adds, “…unless the Father who sent Me draws him…”
Then, “The message is – IT’S UP TO YOU!”
You need to look at all the counsel God has provided regarding salvation especially with regard to the necessity for faith in salvation.
You are imposing Calvinist theology onto Paul. The apostle Paul firmly believed in O.T. Scripture; all Scripture is God breathed, and is profitable for, etc,… Therefore he fully agreed with passages like Ezekiel 18, which taught that the wicked can choose righteousness and then fall away back into wickedness again. This too was a matter of faith. Faith is not something unique to New Testament times ya know. Read Hebrews 11, there were people of faith right down through history: Abel, Noah, Job, Abraham, Moses, Sarah, Joshua, Esther, David, etc.. And if you read about the kings, some who were righteous fell away and became wicked, while some who were wicked turned to righteousness proving how true Ezekiel 18 is that men can, of their own volition, choose life or death.
Aidan writes, “Therefore he fully agreed with passages like Ezekiel 18, which taught that the wicked can choose righteousness and then fall away back into wickedness again. This too was a matter of faith.”
Yes, it is a matter of faith as the Calvinist says. No one can choose righteousness without faith.
Then, “some who were wicked turned to righteousness proving how true Ezekiel 18 is that men can, of their own volition, choose life or death.”
Isn’t this also a matter of faith? Can anyone choose life without faith?
rhutchin
Yes, it is a matter of faith as the Calvinist says. No one can choose righteousness without faith.
br.d
How many brain cells – does it take for a person to recite HALF-TRUTHS over and over to himself – while HIDING the WHOLE TRUTH! :-]
As it turns out – not many!!!
The TRUE “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
RH writes, “No one can choose righteousness without faith.”
You choose righteousness by choosing faith. Note, Abraham BELIEVED God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. “BY FAITH Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Heb.11:7). But you are still avoiding to force of Ezekiel 18 where a wicked man can CHOOSE to repent and become righteous before God, and then CHOOSE to turn around and go back into his wickedness and be lost.
Aidan writes, “But you are still avoiding to force of Ezekiel 18 where a wicked man can CHOOSE to repent and become righteous before God, and then CHOOSE to turn around and go back into his wickedness and be lost.”
Nope. The choice is always before the wicked to turn from their wickedness and repent. However, no wicked person can willfully choose to turn from his wickedness without first receiving faith or without God’s help and intervention to do so. Ezekiel sets out the choice that God gives to the wicked but it is impossible for a wicked person to repent without faith. This is clearly taught by Paul when he writes, “…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.” The plight of the wicked is hopeless and only in Christ is there hope.
The carnal mind is a mind that is set on the flesh, hence the reason why it cannot please God. But he can please God if he chooses faith and sets his mind on the Spirit. But you still are unable to explain why the righteous in Ezekiel 18 can fall away.
Aidan writes, “The carnal mind is a mind that is set on the flesh, hence the reason why it cannot please God. But he can please God if he chooses faith and sets his mind on the Spirit.”
Chooses faith?? LOL!!! Faith is conviction and assurance; it comes from hearing the gospel – one does not choose to be convicted or assured; he is convicted and assured by what he hears.
Then, “But you still are unable to explain why the righteous in Ezekiel 18 can fall away.”
The righteous do not fall away. They cannot fall away; they are preserved by the Holy Spirit. The only exception is found in 1 John – “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.”
LOL!!! Faith involves allowing yourself to be persuaded 🙂. And yet the righteous man fell away and was lost in Ezekiel 18:24. Your view is man made.
Aidan writes, “Faith involves allowing yourself to be persuaded”
Hebrews 11 describes faith as conviction and assurance. Faith does not precede persuasion. Faith is that which results from one being persuaded. How could a person be more persuaded of that which he has come to be convicted and that gives him assurance?
rhutchin
How could a person be MORE persuaded of that which he has come to be convicted and that gives him assurance?
br.d
Notice the crafty use of language here!
INTERPRETATION
After a bio-bot has been given the gift of a cerebral-programming upgrade – in which the function of “conviction” and “assurance” have been installed in his brain – how does that not fully entail the function of “persuasion”?
However “assurance” in Calvinism – is designed to MASQUERADE as something it isn’t
It is a LOGICAL impossibility to have “assurance” of something one does not know.
John Calvin
-quote
Before men are born their LOT is assigned to each of them by the SECRET will of god.
(Calvin’s Bible Commentaries, 262–263)
The only “assurance” the Calvinist has – is the “assurance” that Calvin’s god has designed him for one or the other.
Therefore “assurance” of salvation in Calvinism – is designed to MASQUERADE as something it isn’t.
One more: “ANGEL OF LIGHT”
One simply chooses to believe when they are persuaded to believe, or have faith in a thing. That’s it, mystery solved! And the righteous man in Ezekiel 18:24 still fell away.
Aidan writes, ‘the righteous man in Ezekiel 18:24 still fell away.”
Ezekiel 18 provides examples of situations and the impacts of those situations. It says, “Suppose a man is righteous…” and “Suppose such a man has a violent son…” and “if the wicked person…” Do these situations actually occur in life. Do wicked people turn from their wickedness and start doing righteousness? Only if they begin to fear God (OT) of receive faith in Christ (NT).
The righteous person is distinguished from a wicked person (e.g., in Proverbs) by a fear of God. The righteous person fears God; the wicked does not.
The examples given are to explain the statement in v4, “The one who sins will die.” If it should happen that a righteous person turns to wickedness, he will die. If it should happen that a wicked person turns to righteousness, he will live. These are examples to explain what God means when He says, “The one who sins will die.” It is not the whole story. We learn elsewhere in the Scriptures that no one turns from his wickedness unless he receives faith or begins to fear God and faith/a fear of God are changes initiated in a person by God.
rhutchin
The righteous person is distinguished from a wicked person (e.g., in Proverbs) by a fear of God.
The righteous person fears God; the wicked does not.
br.d
Lets see how this is LOGICALLY resolved Calvinism
1) Calvin’s god decrees “righteous” impulses to infallibly come to pass within Person-A’s brain.
The Calvinist calls this person “righteous” – attributing righteousness to this person.
Even though the impulses that CAUSE all human functionality come to pass infallibly
And as a result – all human functionality is completely outside of this person’s control.
2) Calvin’s god decrees “wicked” impulses to infallibly come to pass within Person-B’s brain
The Calvinist calls this person “wicked” – attributing wickedness to this person.
Even though the impulses that CAUSE human functionality come to pass infallibly
And as a result – all human functionality is completely outside of this person’s control.
And of course the author of that scripture understood all of that also! ;-D
Rhutchin writes, “The righteous person is distinguished from a wicked person (e.g., in Proverbs) by a fear of God. The righteous person fears God; the wicked does not.”
Even in the OT you could only be accounted righteous by God through faith. And, proper Godly fear comes through faith!
ABRAHAM BELIEVED God and it was accounted to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS.
“BY FAITH ABEL offered….through which he obtained witness that HE WAS RIGHTEOUS” (Heb. 11:4).
“BY FAITH NOAH,…… MOVED WITH GODLY FEAR,…….became heir of THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS ACCORDING TO FAITH” (11:7).
Hebrews 11:32,33
And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: WHO THROUGH FAITH subdued kingdoms, WORKED RIGHTEOUSNESS, etc,..
So, tell me again, ‘how did the righteous man become wicked again and fall away in Ezekiel 18:24?’ We find examples of this, both in the OT and in the NT. Remember what Jesus said to the Jews in Luke 13:3, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
Ezekiel 3:20 NKJV-
“Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH HE HAS DONE SHALL NOT BE REMEMBERED; but his blood I will require at your hand.”
Remember that! HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH HE HAS DONE SHALL NOT BE REMEMBERED. “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
So explain to me how a person who was once righteous through faith, could fall back into sin and wickedness and be lost?
Aidan writes, “Even in the OT you could only be accounted righteous by God through faith. And, proper Godly fear comes through faith! ”
Exactly the conclusion of the Calvinists. So, you are consistent with the Calvinists on this.
Then, “So, tell me again, ‘how did the righteous man become wicked again and fall away in Ezekiel 18:24?’”
He didn’t. This was by example to explain what God meant when He said, “The soul that sins will die.” A righteous person may do wicked acts, but he will never become wicked.
Then, “Remember what Jesus said to the Jews in Luke 13:3, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
Jesus was speaking to Jews who were without faith. Remember what Jesus preached – “Repent and believe the gospel.” Repentance by itself accomplishes nothing. It is a first step.
Then, ‘So explain to me how a person who was once righteous through faith, could fall back into sin and wickedness and be lost?”
He cannot.
rhutchin
A righteous person may do wicked acts, but he will never become wicked.
br.d
Just like a ROBOT that is designed to be a circle – may do square things – but he will never be a square.
It is interesting to note – the overwhelming number of Calvinistic conceptions concerning humans – fit the model of ROBOT
I wonder why! :-]
Aidan wrote, “So, tell me again, ‘how did the righteous man become wicked again and fall away in Ezekiel 18:24?’”
Rhutchin writes, “He didn’t. This was by example to explain what God meant when He said, “The soul that sins will die.” A righteous person may do wicked acts, but he will never become wicked.”
Notice what it says, he turns away from his righteousness back into sin and wickedness.
Ezekiel 18:24 NKJV-
“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? ALL THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH HE HAS DONE SHALL NOT BE REMEMBERED; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.”
Note again, he turns away from his righteousness into sin and is doing ALL the abominations of the wicked man, and the question is asked “SHALL HE LIVE?” No! Certainly not! He will die. And he will die for the same reason that the wicked man dies. None of his righteousness shall be remembered; “because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.” “The soul who sins shall die.” Period!
In Luke 15 THE SON WAS INITIALLY ALIVE when he was WITH THE FATHER with all of the blessings that entailed. But when he LEFT THE FATHER he went into prodigal living. As a result of being separated from the father and living in sin he had now become spiritually dead, and was lost. Had he died in his sin he would have been lost forever!
Note, Luke 15:24 NKJV -‘for this my son was dead and is alive AGAIN; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.” This passage clearly shows that a son of God can fall away and be lost.
Aidan writes, “Note again, he turns away from his righteousness into sin and is doing ALL the abominations of the wicked man, and the question is asked “SHALL HE LIVE?” No!”
As Paul writes in Philippians, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” God preserves His elect even though He does not make them perfect, and without sin, until the end.
rhutchin
God preserves His elect
br.d
Preserves them from what?
In Calvinism – a person’s election status is either INFALLIBLY TRUE – or it is INFALLIBLY FALSE.
It is a LOGICAL impossibility to “preserve” something that is INFALLIBLY FALSE.
And it is LOGICALLY FALSE – to claim that something INFALLIBLY TRUE – needs to be preserved – in order to keep it INFALLIBLY TRUE.
Perhaps what we have here is Monergism MASQUERADING as Synergism??
That wouldn’t surprise me – because there are many thing in Calvinism which MASQUERADE as things they are not.
rhutchin
God who has begun a good work in you will complete it ….
br.d
Yes – but in Calvinism “good work” can mean designing you specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
John Calvin
-quote
Before men are born their LOT is assigned to each of them by the SECRET will of god.
You have no way of knowing what the SECRET will is – until after you wind up in one place or another.
However – there is probability that you can utilize.
The MANY are designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
The FEW are designed for the other.
So the Calvinist has more probability of being designed for the lake of fire
For his good pleasure of course! :-]
Rhutchin writes, “As Paul writes in Philippians, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” God preserves His elect..”
You are missing one important word in that statement, the word “faithful.”
God preserves His FAITHFUL elect is a more correct way to say it.
2 Peter 2:20-22 NKJV
“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”
Hebrews 6:4-8 NKJV
“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”
rhutchin
one does not choose to be convicted or assured
br.d
Well that’s called showing one’s hand now isn’t it!
No “choice” there is there! :-]
rhutchin
he [the person] is convicted and assured by what he hears.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god determines certain impulses to come into the person’s crainiu
We have a “hearing” impulse.
We have a “conviction” impulse
And we have am “assurance” impulse
All of which are AUTHORED by Calvin’s god who decrees them to infallibly come to pass within the person’s neurocranium.
So to point of fact – the person cannot claim ownership of any of those impulses.
Now if that does not fit the model of ROBOT – then frogs don’t jump and rabbits don’t hop! :-]
rhutchin
The righteous do not fall away. They cannot fall away; they are preserved by the Holy Spirit
br.d
Actually they don’t have anything to fall away from.
Their eternal destiny was FIXED before they were created.
But of course – that is only – as Calvin says concerning his church – a -quote “few grains of wheat hidden under a PILE of chaff”.
The preponderance of Calvinists are given a FALSE faith.
And live their daily lives having thousands of infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions
Of themselves and the purpose for which Calvin’s god created them
For he specifically created them for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
Wow Calvinist are so blessed to have that!! :-]
rhutchin
The choice is always before the wicked to turn from their wickedness and repent
br.d
Notice the way this is statement is carefully phrased – in order to MASQUERADE human liberty in Calvinism’s as something it isn’t’.
– The “choice”
DECODED:
Which Calvin’s god is the exclusive determiner of
– is always before the wicked –
DECODED:
Who have no choice in the matter of being what they are – because Calvin’s god is the determiner of that also.
– to turn
DECODED
But only if Calvin’s god permits and makes that available doing so to them
– from THEIR wickedness
DECODED:
Which really isn’t THEIR wickedness after all
Because their nature is designed and determined by infallible decree
And they have no say or choice in the matter of any infallible decree
– and repent
DECODED:
Fat chance Calvin’s god had that in mind when he infallibly decreed what that person would be and do.
The vast majority of what Calvin’s god decrees infallibly come to pass is in fact wickedness
You See!
Anyone can learn to DECODE Calvinism’s deceptive language! :-]
Aidan writes, “Calvi-god is truly the puppet master is he not?”
A puppet master who doesn’t use strings and who doesn’t use coercion. Is there such a thing?? How does God do it??
Rhutchin writes, “A puppet master who doesn’t use strings and who doesn’t use coercion.”
LOL!!! No, he’s just a puppet master who predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men.
Aidan writes, “No, he’s just a puppet master who predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men.”
And God does this with no strings attached and without coercing people to act in one way or another. How does God do it??
I think anybody who knows about Calvinism knows it’s nothing but control and coercion.
A force that forces without forcing! 😀
Like giving some a potion to make them desire and love Calvi-god. If we did the same for ourselves it would probably be called something a lot stronger than coercion.
Too Funny Aidan!!!
A love potion that AUTO-MAGICALLY makes their brains DOUBLE-MINDED 😀
Aidan writes, “Like giving some a potion to make them desire and love Calvi-god. ”
That potion is called, “faith.” Faith is a love potion. Let br.d denigrate faith; you should know better.
rhutchin
[IN Calvinism] Faith is a love potion.
Let br.d denigrate [Calvinism’s] faith
br.d
Br.d could never ever possibly compete with Calvinism – when it comes to denigrating things! ;-]
Rhutchin writes, “That potion is called, “faith.”
That potion is called “irresistible grace” and it’s main ingredient is COMPULSION.
I wonder what chemical Calvin’s god uses in his love potion formula?
LSD???
That at least would explain a few things about Calvinist behavior patterns! ;-D
Yep! It’s a complete brainwash.
Aidan writes, “That potion is called “irresistible grace” and it’s main ingredient is COMPULSION.”
Jesus speaks of irresistible grace in John 6, when He says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” The drawing of a person to Christ is a work of God accomplished through the preaching of the gospel and those whom God is drawing find the gospel irresistible. We are saved by the grace of God and God uses an irresistible faith to save us. Faith is the love potion God gives to His elect.
Nonsense! Irresistible Nonsense! Men are drawn through the gospel, and they can reject that draw if they want to.
Aidan writes, “Men are drawn through the gospel, and they can reject that draw if they want to.”
That is where you differ from the Calvinists. A Calvinist would point to John 6:45, that describes the drawing of God as, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me,” and conclude that no one ever rejects what they hear and learn from God – when God is the teacher, a person always comes to Christ.
Many people are attracted to the gospel for reasons apart from God’s drawing.
Aidan
Men are drawn through the gospel, and they can reject that draw if they want to.”
rhutchin
That is where you differ from the Calvinists
br.d
TRUE – because in Calvinism – no event can possibly come to pass – that has not been determined RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god.
That is why the Calvinist cannot have one single impulse in his cranium – which he can call his own! :-]
So let EVENT [X] = a coin decreed to infallibly land heads-up at Time-T
It LOGICALLY follows:
1) If Calvin’s god does not grant EVENT [X] FREEDOM to come pass – he becomes a house divided against itself
2) If Calvin’s god does grant EVENT [X] PERMISSION to come to pass – he becomes a house divided against itself
3) if Calvin’s god does make EVENT [X] AVAILABLE to come to pass – he becomes a house divided against itself
4) If Calvin’s god were to PREVENT EVENT [X] from coming to pass – he becomes a house divided against itself
So in Calvinism we have:
– FREEDOM
– PERMISSION
– AVAILABILITY
– NON-PREVENTION
All of which must be COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
And we also have the LOGICAL INVERSE:
1) The coin is NOT FREE to NOT land heads-up at Time-T
2) The coin is NOT PERMITTED to NOT land heads-up at Time-T
3) NOT landing heads-up at Time-T is NOT AVAILABLE to the coin
4) The coin landing heads-up at Time-T CANNOT BE PREVENTED
Now make EVENT [X] = Adam decreed to infallibly eat the fruit
And we have all of the exact same LOGICAL consequences
rhutchin
Many people are attracted to the gospel for reasons apart from God’s drawing.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god infallibly decrees an impulse called “attraction” to come to pass within a Calvinists brain
But that impulse MAY or MAY NOT accompany the “Drawing” impulse
And besides that – Calvin’s god has to perform an upgrade on the bio-bot’s cerebral-programming.
He must outfit the bio-bot’s programming with the function of “belief” which all bio-bots by design are not born (i.e. created) with. :-]
And I would go to Matthew 13:15 and say, they only reject or believe the gospel because they choose to. Those who choose to see and hear will turn and be healed, but if they decide not to see and hear they will not turn. Really it’s all in our hands how we respond to the gospel. There’s no irresistible grace involved in any way, shape, or form.
Aidan writes, “I would go to Matthew 13:15 and say, they only reject or believe the gospel because they choose to.”
Matthew 13:15 is preceded by v13, “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” It describes the current condition of the Jewish leadership.
In contrast, Jesus says to His disciples, in v11, “it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” The ability to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven is possible through faith and faith is given to one and not to another.
Only those with faith can “choose to see and hear.” Paul tells us, “by grace you have been saved” and again “by grace you have been saved through faith.” This faith is freely bestowed on people by God as is His grace. God’s grace is irresistible as is the faith conveyed to people who hear and learn from Him.
rhutchin
Only those with faith can “choose to see and hear.”
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Only those whom Calvin’s god updates the bio-programming with the “faith” upgrade – are outfitted with the “choice” function – and the “hearing” function.
But even though the Calvinist has been upgraded with these functions
The brain is never “MERELY” permitted to determine what it will choose
And the brain is never “MERELY” permitted to determine what it will “hear”.
Because only what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees come to pass (within the cerebral cavity) is permitted.
Its sure a good thing Calvinists have that as a safe guard! :-]
Rhutchin writes, “Matthew 13:15 is preceded by v13, “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” It describes the current condition of the Jewish leadership.”
You left out v12, “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” Then v.13, “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
According to context, the reason why more was given to His disciples, was because they had not closed their eyes and ears to the truth – so to them more was given, which explains what He said in v.11. But the rest of the Jews had closed their eyes and ears to the truth, which explains His statement in v.12, “but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” Which is why He spoke to them in parables v.13, it was “because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” Which in turn explains what He said in v.15.
Matthew 13:15 NKJV-
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’
Note how the hearts of this people had GROWN DULL! In other words, it wasn’t always that way.😃 THEY CHOSE to close their eyes and ears; that was the reason why they were unable to understand with their hearts and turn. THEIR CHOICE to hear or not to hear determined the outcome; it determined whether more was given, or whether even what they had was taken away from them.
It’s the very same today, there is no irresistible grace – it’s all down to US – what WE WILL CHOOSE!
Aidan writes, “You left out v12, “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” Then v.13, “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
We can read this as, “For whoever has [faith]…whoever does not have [faith]…because [without faith] seeing…” In v11, ““Because it has been given to you [through faith] to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.”
Then, “Note how the hearts of this people had GROWN DULL! ”
The only direction a person without faith can go. The basic understanding they have will be taken away. Even atheists understand the gospel but like the Jews, it is foolishness to them. Without faith, “THEY CHOSE to close their eyes and ears;” What other choice would we expect them to make.
Then, “It’s the very same today, there is no irresistible grace – it’s all down to US – what WE WILL CHOOSE!”
As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1, “…by God’s doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, ‘LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.’”
Rhutchin writes: “Without faith, “THEY CHOSE to close their eyes and ears;” What other choice would we expect them to make.”
LOL!!🤣 In Calvinism THEY CAN’T CHOOSE anything, it must be given to them. In Calvinism THEY ARE DEAD, and dead men can’t do anything! A dead man cannot choose open or close his eyes; nor can dead men hear. It’s not as if they can even BECOME DULL of hearing, they are deaf and blind because they are dead!😜 In Calvinism dead men must be made “regenerate” before they can do anything, even before they can be given faith. Therefore, dead men have no faith to be taken away from them.
Rhutchin wrote as proof of “irresistible grace.”
“1 Corinthians 1, “…by God’s doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, ‘LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.’”
It’s a pity you don’t look at the context before you cite your proof-texts. You quoted 1 Corinthians 1:30-31! Vs. 26-28 have explained what their calling is not; vs. 30-31 emphasize what their call is. All men have been dismissed from having any right to boast before God. However, from God’s own work (ex auto), the Corinthians have been made what they are through Jesus Christ. It was from God that they were in Christ; it was to God alone that they owed the privilege of having been called into communion with Christ.
The construction stresses these points: (1) The ORIGIN of our being called into the new relationship is from God; (2) The WHO of the new relationship are the ones despised and rejected by the world; and (3) The INSTRUMENTALITY through which God accomplished this work – Jesus Christ.
And so, in this whole section, Paul has shown that the gospel is not another philosophy because of the nature of the ones who accept its call. THE ONES WHO ACCEPT THE CALL were from the lower strata of society, not the ones who would be attracted to a new philosophy – such as the philosophers and aristocrats. Furthermore, the gospel rejected “human wisdom” and appeals to salvation through a crucified Christ, a salvation that deprived men of any reason for boasting before God in their own accomplishments or persons. The gospel cannot be another philosophy; it is not like any of the philosophies. It redeems and sanctifies men–not on the basis of human wisdom or merit, but through what Jesus has done for them.
Having shown that no man has any ground for boasting in himself, nor in men, or in the doctrines of men for that matter, Paul concludes his argument by saying, “as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD” (v.31).
Therefore, it is clear to see that this passage has nothing to do with irresistible grace.
rhutchin
Jesus speaks of irresistible grace in John 6, when He says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him
br.d
Well – DUH!
All human functionality (especially sinful functionality) is irresistible in Calvinism!!
Aidan writes, “I think anybody who knows about Calvinism knows it’s nothing but control and coercion.”
LOL!!! I guess that statement reveals that you don’t know about Calvinism.
Aidan
I think anybody who knows about Calvinism knows it’s nothing but control and coercion.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! I guess that statement reveals that you don’t know about Calvinism.
br.d
Well – its most definitely 100% control – that’s for sure!
On the coercion – part – its a Force that Forces without Forcing!
I.E. Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK language :-]
RH writes, “LOL!!! I guess that statement reveals that you don’t know about Calvinism.”
As Br.d said, it’s definitely 100% control – that’s for sure!
As for Coercion? Two synonyms Webster uses certainly fits the bill for Calvinism.
“COMPEL typically suggests overcoming of resistance or unwillingness by an irresistible force”
“CONSTRAIN suggests the effect of a force or circumstance that limits freedom of action or choice.”
Aiden
“COMPEL typically suggests overcoming of resistance or unwillingness by an irresistible force”
br.d
Well – the infallible decree is certainly irresistible!
But of course your hardly going to hear a Calvinist acknowledge the infallible decree has “force”
And if he tries to tell you the infallible decree is Forceless – he’s speaking out of two sides of the mouth. :-]
RH here for example has posted statements to the effect that Calvin’s god’s decree is ENFORCED.
Not logically possible to have something ENFORCED without some kind of FORCE
But of course the average Calvinist brain is consistently unaffected by logic! :-]
Aiden
“CONSTRAIN suggests the effect of a force or circumstance that limits freedom of action or choice.”
br.d
And this is 100% TRUE in Calvinism
Divine permission in Calvinism follows this model:
1) What is CAUSED is permitted
2) What is NOT CAUSED is NOT-permitted
In Calvinism – Adam was infallibly CAUSED to eat the fruit
And thus Adam was NOT-permitted to NOT eat the fruit.
Very good! I was thinking in terms of irresistible grace as the irresistible force, and compatilism as limited freedom. As Dr. Flowers says, it’s not free free will in Calvinism.
Right!
a large number of things in Calvinism are designed to MASQUERADE as something they are not.
That’s why Dr. Ken Wilson in his research on Augustine – calls Calvinism’s form of freedom: “UNFREE Free will”
“UNFREE Free will” Very good – an illusion of freedom!
Yes!
Calvinists – (and especially RH) are experts at telling LITTLE truths – designed to hide the WHOLE TRUTH.
They use misleading terminology – strategically designed to present things – as something they really aren’t in Calvinism.
You are familiar with “ANGEL OF LIGHT”?
Essentially – involves presenting something – giving it an appearance – to make it look like something it actually isn’t
Calvinist descriptions of many things within their system follow that model.
They use carefully worded statements to make things APPEAR in a way that they actually aren’t.
I wonder has he ever read, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”
EXACTLY!!!!
Well said Aidan!
A Calvinist cannot obey that command of Jesus’
And you can see that play out – in one way or another – in pretty much every post RH makes.
He cannot allow himself to tell the WHOLE TRUTH
If he does – Calvinism will go the way of the dinosaur
And RH knows it.
Aidan writes, “As for Coercion? Two synonyms Webster uses certainly fits the bill for Calvinism.
“COMPEL typically suggests overcoming of resistance or unwillingness by an irresistible force”
“CONSTRAIN suggests the effect of a force or circumstance that limits freedom of action or choice.””
Where do compel and constrain come into play in Calvinism? All you can say is that people are compelled to sin because they are born without faith and no one can turn away from his sin without God’s help in giving them faith and God gives a person faith through the hearing of the gospel. God does constrain the sin that people seek to do and that is why Calvinism says that people are Totally Depraved and not Utterly Depraved.
LOL!!! Totally depraved IS utterly depraved. irresistible grace and compatilism for compel and constrain.
rhutchin
Where do compel and constrain come into play in Calvinism?
br.d
Already explained!
Where have you been?
A little god, hiding behind the curtain, masquerading as one who is loving, good, gracious, merciful, and eager to save, all while pulling all the levers of control that lead to every sin and evil that comes to pass. And many a Calvinist pastor hides behind a similar curtain, seeking to control and manipulate all under his sway. What a marvelous day it was when I escaped all of that deception and chicanery!
Oh yes, Calvinism, what a loveless religion, full of the wiles of the devil. I’m sure the leadership loves you, ever since you walked away having looked under the fleece and cried wolf so to speak? I know there are genuine people there who are simply led astray, but what about those who know the truth about the teachings of Calvinism? They have no excuse as far as I’m concerned! They twist the meaning of words, then they twist the scriptures, furthermore, they have totally corrupted the nature of God – they simply twist and corrupt everything. What they forget, is that this all going to come out on the day of judgment. All I can say is, ‘I’m leaving that in the Lord’s hands,’ except on that day there will be nowhere left for anyone to hide!
I am with you in many of your sentiments. When I first awakened, I had a great deal of anger and resentment toward those who twisted scripture and used it to bind me. I am now a little more willing to grant grace, acknowledging that I cannot know who is sincerely misled and who is deliberately misleading. But God knows, and those who call themselves ‘teachers’ and ‘leaders’ will be held to greater accountability for their handling, or mishandling, of the Words of Truth and Life.
Well said! I agree, it is the best way to deal with the anger and disappointment. We just have to get on with the business of dealing with our own issues first. Yes, we continue to try to help them when given opportunity, but for our own mental and spiritual well-being we must leave the rest up to God – He can take care of it. Not always an easy balance to maintain, but absolutely necessary.
rhuthcin
Paul said, “…in God we live and move and have our being…” Aidan interpreted this to mean that God has us like a puppet on a string. Go read the discussion.
br.d
I did read it.
You created a strawman by claiming that as Aidain’s position.
A LOGICAL consequence of the Calvinist interpretation – does in fact reduce mankind to ROBOTIC functionality.
Rhutchin writes:
“God draws some to Christ but not others, God gives faith to some but not to others.”
Well if God only draws and gives faith to some but not others, then that suggests He is only involved in some lives not everybody’s life. So let’s call it what it is – limited determinism. But can it even be called determinism since He had to personally intervene in order to save them? Seems more like He had to intervene to change the course of history. What kind of determinism is that? I’m not buying your interpretation of scripture – it’s too loosey goosey!
Aidan writes, “if God only draws and gives faith to some but not others, then that suggests He is only involved in some lives not everybody’s life.”
God raises up nations and tears down nations. God appoints kings and dethrones kings. God gives good things to the unsaved in order to provide for His elect. God restrains the sin people desire to do while giving faith to His elect. There is not an iota of activity in His creation in which He is not involved to accomplish His purpose. There is more to the world tan God drawing His elect to Christ and giving them faith. It is through the preaching of the gospel that God draws His elect to Christ and prepares the non-elect for judgment.
Then, “Seems more like He had to intervene to change the course of history.”
God’s interventions in His creation were planned before He created and history is firmly on the path He laid out.
Then, “I’m not buying your interpretation of scripture”
Go for it.
Rhutchin writes: “God’s interventions in His creation were planned before He created and history is firmly on the path He laid out.”
Rhutchin contradicts himself: “God’s omniscient knowledge is not the cause of future events. God put into motion all that He knew was to happen when He created. In creating, God determined that which He knew was to happen.”
So, if as you say, God’s foreknowledge before creation was not the cause of future events, but rather His creating caused those future events to happen, then it wasn’t His pre-planned interventions that determined everything before creation. Why don’t you just simply come out and say, “God knew all that which was to happen before creation, because He pre-determined it all before creation?” Either God predetermined everything that was going to happen before creation or He didn’t, you can’t have it both ways!
Listen, I’m not buying it because I know that the devil has blinded you with many lies. And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker!
Audan writes, “So, if as you say, God’s foreknowledge before creation was not the cause of future events, but rather His creating caused those future events to happen, then it wasn’t His pre-planned interventions that determined everything before creation.”
God often acts in concert with His creation. For example, God is said to cause it to rain, snow, etc. Yet, we have weather prognosticators who explain how natural processes account for rain, snow, etc. God created the natural system governed by natural laws that God maintains and enforces. So, God planned the futre using naturally occurring phenomena. In Isaiah 10, we see how God uses the Assyrians to judge Israel, but the Assyrians know only that they desire to destroy Israel. So, God has pre-planned all of history and has an omniscient knowledge of all that is to happen – but that knowledge does not cause the Assyrians to act because they want to gain God’s purpose, but they act only for their own purposes. God’s intervention – His working of all things – informs His knowledge, so that God knows all that He will do.
The, “Why don’t you just simply come out and say, “God knew all that which was to happen before creation, because He pre-determined it all before creation?””
I could have except the focus was on God’s omniscience. God’s omniscience is the basis for some to conclude, rightly, that God determines all things. If a person believes that God is omniscient, then necessarily, he believes that God determines all things – recognizing that God’s knowledge is not the cause of all that hapens, but God’s decree (that which He determined is the cause of His knowledge).
Then, “I’m not buying it because I know that the devil has blinded you with many lies.”
May I conclude that you reject the idea that God is omniscient?
Rhutchin writes, “If a person believes that God is omniscient, then necessarily, he believes that God determines all things”
No! This is a false assumption. Where is the verse that says, ‘God is omniscient, therefore He predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men?’ It doesn’t exist my friend, except in your own misguided imagination.
Then: “May I conclude that you reject the idea that God is omniscient?”
No you may not!😏
Rhutchin writes, “If a person believes that God is omniscient, then necessarily, he believes that God determines all things”
br.d
But notice – how RH will eventually be forced to deny the very claims he asserts.
Here are the LOGICAL steps:
1) When an external mind determines every perception of TRUE and FALSE within a person’s brain – that person has no ability to know whether or not any perception is a TRUE perception or a FALSE perception. Only the external mind knows which is which.
2) And RH knows that Calvin’s god determines his brain to have FALSE perceptions – and establishes them by infallible decree.
3) So all FALSE perceptions within RH’s brain – are established by infallible decree – and thus cannot be escaped.
Because – if RH’s brain were to discern any FALSE perception – it would no longer be a FALSE perception.
And that would falsify the infallible decree.
So the infallible decree which cannot be falsified – does not permit RH’s brain to discern any FALSE perceptions
Which means – RH’s brain infallibly perceives all FALSE perceptions as TRUE perceptions
Which makes it the case that RH’s brain cannot discern a FALSE perception from a TRUE perception
4) All human discernment of TRUE vs FALSE is based on perception.
CONCLUSION:
A person who believes that god determines all things – is a person who believes his brain is VOID the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
And since that is the case for RH – then RH has no ability to know whether or not his statement is TRUE or FALSE.
Welcome to HOTEL CALVI-FORNIA!
You can check out any time you like
But you can never determine what you like. ;-D
Two Calvinists disagree on a fundamental truth, which one believes he’s right? They both MUST believe they are right.🤔
BOTH HAVE THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESS AS FOLLOWS:
Both know that they can’t both be right, so the other must be wrong, right?🤨
But, they also believe that Calvi-god gave each their perception, and that he don’t lie! Hmm??🙄
But if Calvi-god don’t lie or make mistakes, then the other fella mustn’t be regenerate!😮
But hold on, how could Calvi-god feed him a lie and then make him believe he’s saved when he’s not?🤔
Oh, No! Calvi-god does feed us lies, how do I know I’m not the one whose being lied to?😬
Wait a minute, the true Calvies are on my side of the issue – so I must be right.😇
There’s no way he would lie to the greater number among us, would he???😮
No he wouldn’t, not to the party I belong to; Hail Calvinism.😨 I thinks!!
Br.d writes,
“A person who believes that god determines all things – is a person who believes his brain is VOID the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
And since that is the case for RH – then RH has no ability to know whether or not his statement is TRUE or FALSE.”
Response,
So when RH disagrees with you, it is not him but Calvi-god who is disagreeing with himself, since he was the one who determined your perceptions too. Really, this is all Calv-god just going back and forth with himself in a puppet show.
Aidan writes, ‘Where is the verse that says, ‘God is omniscient, therefore He predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men?’ It doesn’t exist my friend, except in your own misguided imagination.”
We can cite the proverbs:
16:1, “The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.”
16:4, “The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.”
16:9, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
16:33, The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.” i.,e. There is no such thing as chance with God as if chance explains events and not God.
Then Psalm 139, “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.”
To prove that God predetermines and micro-manages every thought and action of men, RH wrote:
16:1, “The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.”
16:9, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
Response: Notice above that the heart belongs to man.
16:23, “The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, And adds learning to his lips.”
Note whose in control of his thoughts and actions in the following passage:
Proverbs 4:23-27
23 Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.
24 Put away from you a deceitful mouth
And put devious speech far from you.
25 Let your eyes look directly ahead
And let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you.
26 Watch the path of your feet
And all your ways will be established.
27 Do not turn to the right nor to the left;
Turn your foot from evil.”
It is only when we choose to cooperate with God in a synergistic relationship, that He will direct and make straight our paths.
Proverbs 3:5-6
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.”
Note how it is up to you to “Trust in the Lord,”…and not “lean on your own understanding,” to acknowledge Him “in all your ways.”
Aidan writes, “Note whose in control of his thoughts and actions in the following passage:
Proverbs 4:23-27
23 Watch over your heart…”
Proverbs begins “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge…” and then, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;” The person who is in control of his thoughts and actions is the one who trusts in God to obey God’s commands. When we come to the NT, “trust in God” becomes “faith in Christ.” The one who has faith in Christ is in control of his thoughts and actions but only because he listens to Christ and lets Christ control his thoughts and actions. Proverbs 4 does not speak to the person who does not trust in God. When a person does not trust in God (or have faith in Christ), he cannot be in control of his thoughts and actions.
You are correct to say, “It is only when we choose to cooperate with God in a synergistic relationship, that He will direct and make straight our paths,” so long as you understand that a person can only cooperate with God in a synergistic relationship when he has faith in Christ. The person who has no faith in Christ will not cooperate with God.
Nonetheless, when the proverb says, “A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps,” it refers to all people – those with faith and those without faith.
Then, “Note how it is up to you to “Trust in the Lord,”…and not “lean on your own understanding,” to acknowledge Him “in all your ways.””
That is something that a person who fears God or has faith in Christ is able to do – naturally, once a person receives faith, it is easy to trust in the Lord because that is what faith is all about – trusting God. Again, we see you disagreeing with the Calvinist when the Calvinist says that faith provides the foundation for a relationship with God – without faith there can be no relationship with God.
rhuthcin
The person who is in control of his thoughts and actions is the one who trusts in God to obey God’s commands
br.d
Neither of which applies to a Calvinist – because nothing about his thoughts and actions or who he trusts is UP TO him.
100% is determined at the foundation of the world – by an external mind.
Poor Calvinist – can’t have a thought or action he can call his own! 🙁
rhutchin
That is something that a person who fears God or has faith in Christ is able to do – NATURALLY,
br.d
Another great example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking!
In Calvinism whatsoever comes to pass – does so INFALLIBLY
And Nature does not have the attribute of INFALLIBILITY
And since every event in Calvinism occurs INFALLIBLY – there is no such thing as a NATURALLY occurring event
Add thus we have one more thing that appears in MASQUERADE form in Calvinism.
Where will the list stop!!
Rhutchin writes, – “God determines all things.”
Then how do you explain the fact that He didn’t determine the following?
Jeremiah 19:5
“They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, NOR DID IT COME INTO MY MIND”
1 John 2:16
“For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—IS NOT OF THE FATHER BUT IS OF THE WORLD.”
In other words – none of these things came from Him. If He were the determiner of all things, then it would have come into His mind; all would have been OF HIM. But they were not, He had no part to play in determining these things!
Aidan writes, “In other words – none of these things came from Him. If He were the determiner of all things, then it would have come into His mind; all would have been OF HIM. But they were not, He had no part to play in determining these things!”
That God determines all things means only that God exercises control over His creation and nothing happens outside His knowledge or decree.
In Leviticus 18:21: “And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.” Thus, we should understand Jeremiah as “They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, NOR DID IT COME INTO MY MIND [to command or speak such.]” In fact God commanded and spoke the exact opposite.
1 John is correct, such things do not come from God but from the world. We should not think that God is ignorant of the things of the world or of their effect on the unsaved – nor that God is not in control of such things. God must decree them for them to prevail.
Rhutchin writes: “That God determines all things means only that God exercises control over His creation and nothing happens outside His knowledge or decree.”
Defined earlier as, “God is omniscient, therefore He predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men.”
Then RH wrote: “Thus, we should understand Jeremiah as “They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, NOR DID IT COME INTO MY MIND [to command or speak such.]”
Yes, RH, it did not even come into God’s mind for them to do such a thing – AND YET THEY DID IT.
RH writes: “God must decree them for them to prevail.”
Translation: “God is omniscient, therefore He predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men.”
Did not even come into His mind – AND YET THEY DID IT!
Rhutchin writes: “That God determines all things means only that God exercises control over His creation and nothing happens outside His knowledge or decree.”
br.d
This is a wonderful example of Calvinist language – almost always designed to HIDE certain aspects of Exhaustive Determinism which he finds unpalatable.
In this case “exercises control OVER
Here the term OVER is strategically used to HIDE the WHOLE TRUTH.
For Calvin’s god exercises 100% control OF whatsoever comes to pass within every Calvinist brain.
Which of course – leaves the Calvinist without one single impulse or perception – he can call his own!
Calvinists are so blessed to have that! :-]
Aidan writes, ‘Yes, RH, it did not even come into God’s mind for them to do such a thing – AND YET THEY DID IT.”
Yet, in Leviticus, God anticipates what Israel would want to do and commands against it. God knew that Israel would want to serve Molech/Baal and other false gods, and He commanded that they never participate in the practices of those false gods. It never entered God’s mind to command otherwise.
rhutchin
Yet, in Leviticus, God anticipates what Israel would want to do and commands against it.
br.d
Well – that command in Calvinism is called the ENUNCIATED will
Which is Calvin’s god’s NON-CAUSAL will
The SECRET will is the CAUSAL will.
And the ENUNCIATED will is most often in direct opposition to the SECRET will
And when the ENUNCIATED will is in direct opposition to the SECRET will – the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.
rhuthcin
He commanded that they never participate in the practices of those false gods. It never entered God’s mind to command otherwise.
br.d
Yes – but it becomes obvious that was a FALSE REPRESENTATION
Because he CAUSED them to do what he commanded them not to do – and did not permit them to do otherwise.
Aidan writes, ‘Yes, RH, it did not even come into God’s mind for them to do such a thing – AND YET THEY DID IT.”
RH writes, “He commanded that they never participate in the practices of those false gods. It never entered God’s mind to command otherwise.”
Okay! So it never entered God’s mind to command them to do such a thing – AND YET THEY DID. That doesn’t square well Calvinist teaching – “He predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men.”
Following on from what Br.d was saying, they heard the ENUNCIATED WILL, there was no SECRET WILL, (“nor did it come into My mind”). It never entered His mind for them to do such a thing – AND YET THEY STILL DID IT.
We serve a God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and must bring to His service a transparent honesty and truthfulness (Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:15,25). So when Jesus says, “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one,” He’s saying we must always speak the truth – so, do you think that neither Jesus nor the Father did so themselves?
But if after telling them, ‘No,’ ‘No,’ your Calvi-god lied to them, THEN CAUSES them to do what he commanded them not to do – and then condemning them for it; you make your Calvi-god into a deceiver and the architect of their downfall.
And if Calvinists are okay with that, what does that say about them?
Aidan writes, ‘That doesn’t square well Calvinist teaching – “He predetermines and micro-manages every single thought and action in men.”
Of course, it does. God understands His creation and the people to whom He gives life. They do nothing without God knowing it and having decreed their actions. Everything that happens is part of God’s plan from beginning to end. However, it is the way Isaiah described the actions of the Assyrians, “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,…”
Then, “But if after telling them, ‘No,’ ‘No,’ your Calvi-god lied to them, THEN CAUSES them to do what he commanded them not to do – and then condemning them for it; you make your Calvi-god into a deceiver and the architect of their downfall.”
God makes people and withholds faith from them until bringing them under the preaching of the gospel. If a person is without faith, then he has no respect for God’s law and is as Paul describes in Romans, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” By withholding faith from a person, God is the “cause” of their evil and “the architect of their downfall,” yet they seek out evil and do so willingly, and that is the basis for their judgment. Should God force people to obey Him or compel them to keep His laws? Isn’t it enough that God said to Adam, “Thou shalt not eat…” Did not Adam understand the command, and did he not willingly eat the fruit – even as God knew he would?
Then, “And if Calvinists are okay with that, what does that say about them?”
It says that they have done more thinking about this than you have.
Aiden
And if Calvinists are okay with that, what does that say about them?”
rhutchin
It says that they have done more THINKING about this than you have.
br.d
Another wonderful example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern!
In this case *AS-IF* the Calvinist can possibly have a thought that wasn’t determined in every part – by an external mind
Which simply “came to pass” within the Calvinist’s brain.
Thank you RH
Please keep those examples coming! :-]
rhutchin
God understands His creation and the people to whom He gives life.
br,d
If after meticulously decreeing every impulse that can ever come to pass within people’s brains – Calvin’s god doesn’t understand those people – he’s got a brain that doesn’t reach the top floor!
rhutchin
They do nothing without God knowing it and HAVING DECREED their actions.
br.d
BINGO!!
Well – a Calvinist can tell the TRUTH now and then can’t he!! :-]
rhutchin
Everything that happens is part of God’s PLAN from beginning to end.
br.d
Here the word PLAN is used as a replacement word for PROGRAMING
You get the picture! :-]
RH writes, “By withholding faith from a person, God is the “cause” of their evil and “the architect of their downfall,” yet they seek out evil and do so willingly, and that is the basis for their judgment.”
Yes, I am glad you finally admit that your Calvin’s god is the cause of evil and the architect of men’s downfall. For he created them the way they are, compelling them with their evil desires and thoughts so that he could judge them for how he made them. Worse still, he has the potion to cure each and every one of them but has decided only to give it to the few. Yes, you are right! He is the “cause” of their evil and “the architect of their downfall.”
Have you ever wondered if your teaching really comes from heaven?
Then.. “Should God force people to obey Him or compel them to keep His laws?”
Then stop supporting “irresistible grace.”
Aidan writes, “Yes, I am glad you finally admit that your Calvin’s god is the cause of evil and the architect of men’s downfall. For he created them the way they are, compelling them with their evil desires and thoughts so that he could judge them for how he made them.”
What other conclusion can we draw when we see that God withholds faith from a person and only provides for faith to be conveyed through the hearing of the gospel? What other outcome is possible to the person without faith??
Then, “Worse still, [God] has the potion to cure each and every one of them but has decided only to give it to the few.”
Yes, God lives faith to whom He wills, and our lives are hopeless and miserable until God gives us faith.
Then, “Have you ever wondered if your teaching really comes from heaven? ”
It comes from Christ, Peter, James and Paul – that is good enough.
I think history shows that it comes from people like Augustine, Calvin, J.McArthur, and J.Piper, etc.
rhutchin
What other conclusion can we draw when we see that God withholds faith from a person
br.d
Why the TRUE “T” and the TRUE “I” in Calvinism’s TULIP of course!
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
“I” Irresistible Human Functionality
All human functionality, including morally significant functionality, is produced by impulses infallibly actualized within the human brain which occur as irresistible.
rhutchin
God gives faith to whom He wills
br.d
Along with every sin and every evil!
rhutchin
and our lives are hopeless and miserable until God gives us faith.
w
Well – that is a matter of perception.
And the Calvinist wouldn’t know if either perception were TRUE or FALSE
Because an external mind determines those things for his brain.
And in Calvinism all FALSE perceptions exist by infallible decree
Which the Calvinist is not permitted to discern – because doing so would falsifying the infallible decree which established them.
So the Calvinist has no way of knowing whether or not any perception Calvin’s god puts his cranium is TRUE or FALSE.
Thus his brain could hardly know if his perceptions of “hopelessness” or “miserableness” are TRUE or FALSE.
Don’t ya just want to run right out and get some of that! :-]
Rhutchin,
Do you know what I love about studying cults? I find out that they can take one verse ALONE and make a doctrine out of it.
THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL
Ephesians 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
You had said:
“When we read, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” we can know that nothing can come about without God’s fingerprints on it (so to speak). It is true that God put into motion all that He knew was to happen when He created. However, He was still going to be active within His creation – He brought the flood of Noah, impregnated Mary with Jesus, resurrected Jesus from the tomb, etc. In addition, God used secondary means in working all things – He used Satan to tempt Adam/Eve, to get David to number Israel, and to test Job. God used the Jews ro crucify Christ and to stone Stephen. God draws some to Christ but not others, God gives faith to some but not to others. God does this with a perfect understanding of the impacts of His actions (i,e., His decrees) So, in every event in the history of God’s creation, we see God working all things that happen for His purpose and doing so according to the counsel of His will.”
When are Calvinists gonna READ THE WHOLE BOOK before giving a book report? What do I mean by that? What I mean, is that the COLON indicates that the conversation isn’t over yet, and even without the colon, by English language rules, the colon applies here, and why?
Because of the first word in the next verse:
Verse 12
That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Now, the period indicates that the sentence is complete.
So, God works all things to the coulsel of his will, THAT WE SHOULD BE TO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY, who first trusted Christ.
WE HUMANS WHO BELIEVE IN CHRIST (CHIRISTIANS) are the PRAISE of HIS Glory.
We pesky little humanoids are IMPORTANT to God, we ARE the praise of his glory.
I wish you Calvinists would stop making doctrine out of a single verse, and read the WHOLE STORY first, before making a book report!
That counsel of his own will thingy is all about us Christians…already saved Christians, at that! Meaning, it has nothing to do with salvation, or soteriology. It is for the already saved.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That counsel of his own will thingy is all about us Christians…already saved Christians, at that! Meaning, it has nothing to do with salvation, or soteriology. It is for the already saved.”
We read, “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”
It is the first part of the statement that we must take into context. “…being predestined…” is “according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,” Thus, that which God predestines is “according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,”
It is “we have obtained an inheritance,” that is the basis for “that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”
How do we know that we have obtained an inheritance? Because such was predestined by God.
How do we know whether that which God predestines will come to pass? Because God’s predestination is according to the purpose of Him who works all things (including that which He predestines) according to the counsel of His will,
Why have we received an inheritance? So that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
rhutchin,
I laid it all out for you and you STILL twisted it all up to nonsense.
Verses 11 and 12 is discussing the ALREADY SAVED…even that PREDESTINATED word is the ALREADY SAVED, because the context of PREDESTINATED begins in verse 12, not before. You were not predestined at the foundation of the earth.
The already saved are predestined TO BE…TO BE… AND THAT is something that comes WITH TIME after one is saved.
TO BE is key words here…
You have taken that PREDESTINATED word and perverted it into something that it does not say.
The word INHERITANCE is what? The inheritance is ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN…it is the PROMISED LAND that was given to Abraham by promise.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “The already saved are predestined TO BE…TO BE… AND THAT is something that comes WITH TIME after one is saved….The word INHERITANCE is what? The inheritance is ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN…it is the PROMISED LAND that was given to Abraham by promise.”
Read it again Ed. We have an inheritance in heaven; an inheritance that was predestined by God – “In Christ also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined…” In v5, we see that God predestined us to adoption as sons. This was according to the good pleasure of His will.. As sons, we also have an inheritance – also predestined. This was according to the purpose of God who works all things according to the counsel of His will. In other words, God planned to adopt us and give us an inheritance.
We were predestined to adoption as sons and similarly predestined to receive an inheritance and these things God did in order that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. God had planned and predestined these outcomes before we were saved. Thus, Paul writes, “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…” an inheritance God had predestined us to receive even before we trusted in Christ and guaranteed by the Holy Spirit once we were saved.
It seems that we differ on this point each understanding the text in opposite ways.
rhutchin,
To piggyback on my last comment in which I DELCLARE that this COUNCEL OF HIS WILL thingy is about the already saved, I’m quite sure that you will be hung up, as all Calvinists are, on the word PREDESTINATED, huh, as in at the foundation of the earth you were predestined to be saved, huh?
That’s NOT how I read it at all.
When I read the WHOLE STORY, that is STILL for the already saved…
The already saved is predestined for something…what is it? That is where verse 12 comes into play…
Again, verse 12
That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
That is what the already saved are predestined to be. Nothing more, nothing less, regarding the word “predestinated”.
End of storyline.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That is what the already saved are predestined to be. Nothing more, nothing less, regarding the word “predestinated”.”
No, it is the inheritance we have obtained that was predestined – we receive this inheritance in order that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“No, it is the inheritance we have obtained that was predestined – we receive this inheritance in order that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”
My response
NO NO NO…You were NOT predestinated an inheritance. You OBTAINED the inheritance by trusting Christ, but that inheritance was NEVER predestinated for YOU.
What was predestinated was VERSE 12.
Verse 12
That we should be to the praise of his glory…
Nothing more.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “You were NOT predestinated an inheritance. You OBTAINED the inheritance by trusting Christ, but that inheritance was NEVER predestinated for YOU.”
The text says, “…we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined…” The inheritance was predestined just as adoption as sons was predestined. It is true that we are adopted and obtain this inheritance by trusting in Christ, but that does not negate God’s having planned to adopt as sons and give this inheritance to those who trust in Christ.
Of course, God knew before He created the world the names of those who would trust in Christ and those who would reject Christ. Paul says this in Romans 8, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,…” Paul picks up this theme in Ephesians, “God chose us in Christ 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 planned it all out and initiated His plan by creating the world.
Rhutchin writes: “If a person believes that God is omniscient, then necessarily, he believes that God determines all things”
This is where the Calvinist believes that omniscience equals predetermination which of course everybody else knows it’s not. You might need foreknowledge to predetermine the outcome of an event, but they are not one and the same thing – not by a long shot. Ed has it right in saying that you are twisting Ephesians 1:11. A passage that primarily deals with God’s eternal purpose in Christ (Eph. 1:3-14), is being twisted by Calvinists to mean that God predetermines and micro-manages every thought and action of men on earth. That’s not what the passage says or NECESSARILY implies. You know you must show a scripture, any scripture, that supports such a presumption – but we both know you can’t!
Yes, you try to employ Romans 8:28 to erroneously suggest some form of unconditional foreordination and election, but it fails on closer inspection. The persons “who are the called according to His purpose” are identified with “those who love God” (v.28). God knew in advance THE KIND OF PERSONS He wanted as His people, and predetermined SUCH PEOPLE to be “conformed to the image of His Son,” etc.
A builder might know and determine (or select) in advance the kind of material that is to go into a building. But that does not mean that he foreknew and foreordained each individual stone as such. That is something Calvinists don’t seem to get when it comes to these scriptures.
Aidan,
That was an outstanding perfect response, Aidan… and accurate.
In short, God predetermined WHAT a Christian will be, not WHO will be a Christian.
The word predestine is mentioned 4 times. Twice in one chapter in Romans, and twice in one chapter of ephesians.
And in all instances it’s discussing what God predetermined for Christians, the already saved, not who will be saved.
It is never discussing WHO, but WHAT.
Ed
Yeah, our Calvinist friend has tunnel vision. I remember very clearly when I first had to confront this passage. It was about 32 years ago and I wasn’t very long a Christian when I had a confrontation with my own brother who believes something very similar to the Calvinist on this issue. He was with some Pentecostal group in England. He brought me to this passage to argue that God chooses you to be in Christ. I remember reading through the passage knowing there was something wrong with what he was saying and then there it was, over and over again, “in Christ” NOT “to be in Christ.” …. God doesn’t choose WHO to be in Christ, no, He only chooses and blesses WHAT is “in Christ.” The Calvinist can’t get his head around these facts…….. and that’s a fact.🤗
Aidan,
Yep, they put a period, so to speak, after. “God chose YOU, period.”
They don’t want to complete the thought of the rest of the storyline which continues thru several verses. Only after that can it be dissected.
I went to a local bible study course once with my brother- in- law. It spanned a year, and Ephesians 1:11 came up in the main sanctuary prior to breaking off in our small groups, and they, too, put the period there, and point blank told us that we can’t deny it, because, as they told us… it’s in black and white. My brother-in-law and I just shook our heads, and we both knew about this chapter with the, “TO BE” clauses that calvinists/reformers/Baptists seem to gloss over, but those “TO BE”‘s are the whole and only point of the both chapter in each of Romansand ephesians.
Ed.
Aidan,
In my last I listed Ephesians 1:11. I meant verse 4. My bad.
Ed
I have a little study booklet before me, and when he gets to verses 4 and 5, he says: “before the foundation of the world” The “pro” (before) looks back to the past eternity.” Then finishes by saying – “The choosing, foreordaining, was in the purpose of God, what He would do in Christ. See vv. 9-11 below. Keep this thought before you in studying the passage.”
Just a thought for our Calvinist friend! Robot emoji.🤖
Aidan writes, “God doesn’t choose WHO to be in Christ, no, He only chooses and blesses WHAT is “in Christ.””
Paul uses the term, “in Christ,” not to denote a characteristic of those He would save but to tell us how He will save – by means of Christ and His death, burial and resurrection. God chose His elect in Christ (by means of what Christ would do) and did so “that His elect should be holy and without blame before Him…” If God chose those who were already saved, then they were already “holy and without blame before Him,” as that is what being saved means. Thus, God’s choosing of some to be holy and without blame before Him is God’s choosing of those He would then save.
Rhutchin writes, “Thus, God’s choosing of some to be holy and without blame before Him is God’s choosing of those He would then save.”
Yes! But it says, “in Christ,” not – TO BE in Christ. It never says, “He chose some to be in Christ,” that’s nowhere to be found in the text.The context is God’s eternal purpose in Christ. In Christ (v.3) – This is the key phrase of the book. To be “in Christ” is to be in the sphere or relationship where all spiritual blessings are available. Entrance into Christ is by baptism (Gal. 3:27).
1). God is the Architect of the plan, and Fountain-head of blessings (vv. 3-6).
a. Every blessing in Christ, v.3.
b. The plan was predetermined by God “in Christ,” vv. 4-6. (The choosing, foreordaining, was in the purpose of God, what He would do in Christ, cf. vv. 9-11).
2). Christ is the channel, (vv. 7-12).
a. Redemption/forgiveness secured through Christ’s death, v.7
b. In Christ: the mystery of His will, the summing up of all things, made a heritage, etc., vv. 8-12.
3). “In Him” also, after listening and believing -sealed with the Holy Spirit, the earnest of our inheritance, (vv. 13-14).
That is the sense in which God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.” And, we have the choice as to whether we will be “in Him.”
Aidan writes, ‘That is the sense in which God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.”
You say, “To be “in Christ” is to be in the sphere or relationship where all spiritual blessings are available.” I disagree. I say “in Christ” refers to something that Christ did. In v3, God chose us in Christ means that something Christ did was the vehicle for God to chose us. In v12, “we who first trusted in Christ,” refers to our trusting in something Christ did. The “something” that Christ did was to die for sin and then be resurrected. When we have faith in Christ, it is that “faith” that puts us into the sphere or relationship where all spiritual blessings are available. Again, we see that the Calvinist makes a distinction based on faith that you do not want to make.
Then, “And, we have the choice as to whether we will be “in Him.”
Here is where you differ from the Calvinist. The Calvinist says there is no choice to be “in Him” without faith and faith always chooses to be “in Him.” Without faith, no one has, or can have, the choice as to whether he will be “in Him.” Once again, we see that the Calvinist makes a distinction based on faith that you do not want to make.
rhutchin
The Calvinist says there is no choice to be “in Him” without faith and faith always chooses to be “in Him.”
br.d
Calvinist Classroom #66
Here are 100 different strategies – on how to HIDE the unpalatable aspects of Calvinism within your statements
In this case:
The fact that Exhaustive Determinism eradicates PAP “Alternative Possibilities”
And the NORMATIVE definition for a “choice” is the ability to select among multiple options (i.e. Alternative Possibilities)
And since in Calvinism – there is no such thing as multiple options – the NORMATIVE sense of “choice” does not apply.
Additionally – since every impulse which comes to pass within the Calvinist brain – is exclusively determined by an external mind – it LOGICALLY follows – the Calvinist brain is not the mind that is really making a “choice” after all.
Consequently – the Calvinist is forced to MASQUERADE creaturely “choice” as something it isn’t in Calvinism.
Along with 1000 other things he has to MASQUERADE as something they aren’t
And this is why the Calvinist needs Classroom #66 :-]
You mean that Calvinists make a distinction about faith that the bible never makes. I fully understand that people will only make the choice to come to Christ through faith. But people also make choice through unbelief. These were Christians in Ephesus, saints already in Christ v.1. And they had every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places “in Him.” They got into Him through faith, v.13, and having believed, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. But again, that choice to believe or not to believe was made of their own volition.
Aidan writes, “I fully understand that people will only make the choice to come to Christ through faith.”
Great!! You are on board with the Calvinists on this point.
Then, “But people also make choice through unbelief.”
Again, you are on board with the Calvinists. People in unbelief (i.e., no faith) will not come to Christ.
Then, “These were Christians in Ephesus, saints already in Christ v.1. And they had every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places “in Him.” They got into Him through faith, v.13, and having believed, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. But again, that choice to believe or not to believe was made of their own volition.”
Yes – and faith made that volition possible. A person without faith has no choice to believe or not to believe – without faith, a person will, and can, only choose not to believe. That is why Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, “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.” Those without faith are perishing; those who are being saved are being saved through faith – it is through faith that the gospel is the power of God.
Aidan
I fully understand that people will only make the choice to come to Christ through faith.”
rhutchin
Great!! You are on board with the Calvinists on this point.
br.d
FALSE
What Calvinism has is ROBOT “choice”
Aidan has already told you he rejects that form of “choice”
If only a Calvinist could ever bring himself to tell THE TRUTH!
Dr. Depaulo – Social Scientist – what is deception?
-quote
“We define deception as a deliberate attempt to mislead others.
Falsehoods communicated by people who are mistaken or self-deceived are not lies, but for the deceived person they are literal truths. However, literal truths that are designed to mislead others are in fact lies.”
RH writes, “Yes – and faith made that volition possible.”
🤣LOL!!! God made volition possible, and God made faith possible, and it is that volition which makes choosing faith possible for everyone. And you quote 1 Cor 1:18 way out of context!
RH
RH writes, “Yes – and faith made that “volition” possible.”
br.d
That is funny isn’t it!!!
In Calvinism – that statement is the equivalent of saying the steering mechanism in your care makes its inclination possible.
Creaturely “volition” in Calvinism is ROBOT “volition”
All one need do – is understand Calvinism’s steering mechanism! :-]
Aidan writes, “God made volition possible, and God made faith possible, and it is that volition which makes choosing faith possible for everyone.”
Of course. Faith is conveyed to people who hear the gospel and when people hear the gospel and receive faith, they are enabled to choose life – not before.
Then, “And you quote 1 Cor 1:18 way out of context!”
Nope. The natural man of 1 Corinthians is the man without faith. v18 is simple and direct and means what it says – “…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.” Until God begins a good work in the wicked and draws them to Christ through His word, they perish and nothing can save them – the preaching of the gospel falls on deaf ears that regard the gospel as foolishness. Without God initiating a work of salvation in the heart of the wicked, their plight is hopeless.
Sorry, but you are still quoting things way out of context. All I hear is irresistible grace which is completely foreign to scripture. Men are called through the gospel; something which they are free to reject or accept of their own free will. There’s no irresistible grace involved. It doesn’t exist.
Aidan writes, “Men are called through the gospel; something which they are free to reject or accept of their own free will. There’s no irresistible grace involved. It doesn’t exist.”
Paul argues otherwise. In Romans 8, “Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Those who God calls, He justifies and glories. There is no room for anyone to reject the call of God.
LOL!!! There is nothing in that passage about irresistible grace. I’m sorry, but it’s all in your head.
rhutchin
There is no room for anyone to reject the call of God.
br.d
Well perhaps for you – “called” is one of those things in Calvinism that is are TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
Why would I be surprised! :-]
But then “call of god” in Calvinism – is classified as part of the ENUNCIATED will of Calvin’s god.
And we both know the ENUNCIATED will can be in direct opposition to the SECRET will.
And when the ENUNCIATED will is in opposition to the SECRET will – the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.
That’s how Calvinists get “many are called – few are chosen”
And NONE know which is which! :-]
rhutchin
Of course. [IN Calvinism] Faith is conveyed to people who hear the gospel
br.d
And most of that Faith conveyed to them is FALSE faith.
That’s why Calvin describes the Calvinist church – as a -quote “few grains of wheat hidden under a PILE of chaff”
For the most part – sin is what is conveyed to people
And the only thing that Calvinist’s have – is what Calvin’s god conveys to them :-]
chapmaned24 writes, “And in all instances it’s discussing what God predetermined for Christians, the already saved, not who will be saved.”
In Romans 8, God predestination comes to those God He foreknows and and in Ephesians 1, we see that God chose His elect having already predestined them to adoption. Nowhere in Romans 8 or Ephesians 1 do we find that God chose His elect or those He foreknew on the basis of something they did (that distinguished them from all others). Paul argues against this position in Romans 9 when he writes of the children of promise and explains the “promise” using Jacob and Esau as examples saying, “…(for the children 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),…” God predestines those whom He will save saying that He will adopt them and give them an inheritance.
Aidan writes, “This is where the Calvinist believes that omniscience equals predetermination which of course everybody else knows it’s not.”
Actually, if I understand br.d correctly, it is his position that an omniscient God necessarily determines al things. If not, then everything is OK. Calvinists believe that God’s sovereignty – that encompasses God’s omniscience plus His omnipotence – equals determination (everything that happens must be decreed by God before it can happen). Thus, Satan could not have entered the garden to tempt Adam/Eve without God’s decision (decree) that he do so, and the Jews could not stone Stephen without God’s decree that they do so.
Then, “Ed has it right in saying that you are twisting Ephesians 1:11. A passage that primarily deals with God’s eternal purpose in Christ (Eph. 1:3-14), is being twisted by Calvinists to mean that God predetermines and micro-manages every thought and action of men on earth.”
Guess we disagree on that.
Then, “The persons “who are the called according to His purpose” are identified with “those who love God” (v.28). God knew in advance THE KIND OF PERSONS He wanted as His people, and predetermined SUCH PEOPLE to be “conformed to the image of His Son,” etc.”
WE read, “Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined…”
We know that “those who love God” are the saints. In Matthew 7, Jesus said of the unsaved (and never to be saved), “…I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” Because Jesus says of the unsaved, “I newer knew you,” it follows that He always knew the saved (or the saints). Going into Romans 8, we see that God (i.e., Jesus) always knew His saints because He had chosen them thereby knowing them and in knowing them, God called them, predestined (or predetermined) the to be “conformed to the image of His Son,” etc.
rhutchin
Actually, if I understand br.d correctly, it is his position that an omniscient God necessarily determines al things.
br.d
Calvinist Classroom session #55
100 ways a Calvinist can lie to himself – and tell himself he isn’t! :-]
rhutchin: “Actually, if I understand br.d correctly, it is his position that an omniscient God necessarily determines al things.”
br.d: “Calvinist Classroom session #55 100 ways a Calvinist can lie to himself – and tell himself he isn’t! ”
If I were wrong, you could easily correct what I said. You did not.
rhutchin
If I were wrong, you could easily correct what I said. You did not.
br.d
If Calvin’s god “MERELY” permitted your brain to think for itself – you could have utilized rational reasoning.
And thus derived my position from posts in which I clearly stated the opposite! :-]
But since your brain is not “MERELY” permitted to think for itself – then weighing evidence pro and con – represents epistemic functionality your brain is not permitted to have.
Exhaustive Determinism eradicates PAP “Alternative Possibilities”. Thus weighing “Alternative Possibilities” pro and con – is not a function permitted or made available to your brain.
Thus your brain is VOID the ability to know whether any matter is TRUE or FALSE.
But please don’t go away!
It’s entertaining watching someone whose brain cannot think for itself. ;-]
In other words – every perception in your brain is programmed at the foundation of the world.
Welcome to ROBOT functionality! :-]
br.d
BTW:
That leads us right back to your brain’s constant condition of *AS-IF* thinking
Where you believe a proposition – that all things are determined in every part.
And go about your office *AS-IF* some things are not determined in every part.
In this case going about your office *AS-IF* your brain is “MERELY” permitted to think for itself.
Which everyone here can see – as your condition.
Since much of what you posts – entail bold assertions concerning things being either TRUE or FALSE.
Which is logically impossible for a brain that is not “MERELY” permitted to think for itself.
The Calvinist has a wonderful belief system
In which he goes o about his office *AS-IF* his belief system is FALSE.
Calvinists are so blessed to have that!
rhutchin: “If I were wrong, you could easily correct what I said. You did not.”
br.d: “And thus derived my position from posts in which I clearly stated the opposite! :-]”
So, I derived what you claim was a false conclusion. And you still can’t put it straight. That’s evidence to me that I got it correct the first time. I’ll stick with it, until you say something different.
rhutchin
So, I derived what you claim was a false conclusion. And you still can’t put it straight.
br.d
Well here is an excellent example of you going about your office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did not determine everything in every part
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god “MERELY” permitted your brain to derive something. And derive something FALSE at that!
Hmmmm – Mr. Spoke says he needs to add this to the count of FALSE perceptions – Calvin’s god infallibly decrees come to pass within your cranium. That brings us close to about 20 so far.
Oh BTW – you still don’t seem to have the ability to differentiate between a claim and a TRUTH-STATEMENT.
Let the count continue! ;-D
rhuthcin
Calvinists believe that God’s sovereignty – that encompasses God’s omniscience plus His omnipotence – equals determination (everything that happens must be decreed by God before it can happen).
br.d
Which means – the Calvinist brain is VOID of the epistemic ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any mater.
He has no way of determining (hence knowing) if his belief system is TRUE or FALSE.
Poor thing – doesn’t have a impulse in his brain – he can call his own! :-]
test
How can I read the 2nd and 3rd points?
Hi Annette… I am thinking he used the “First” to mean a primary thought and not that there were any other points. But I might be wrong.
Hello, I agree with this article, but how can we understand Adam’s sin and the plan of salvation? God did not determine sin, but knew that Adam would choose from all eternity to sin and therefore decreed salvation in Jesus Christ? do we have to understand everything with God’s omniscience?
Welcome Jean-Antoine. Are you open to reconsider how omniscience is defined by Scripture?
Verses – future is not completely set in God’s foreknowledge.
Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam 👉to see👈 what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, 👉that I may know👈 what to do to you.’ ”
Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and 👉devising a plan👈 against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And 👉pray that your flight may not be in winter👈 or on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, 👉if it is possible👈, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
God’s mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It’s not locked in right now to seeing everything as “will be” or “is”. God’s foreknowledge is dynamic and includes also the truth about what “might be” or “might not be”. This is called – dynamic omniscience.
1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?
3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.
4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples’ prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem’s fall, indicating Jesus’ believed it might not yet be set?
5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God’s will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?
The answer is an obvious “yes” to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don’t clearly show those self evident implications it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.
********
The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God’s mind in His knowing a “before” that then becomes known as an “after” and a “might be” that then becomes known as either a “will be” or a “could have been”.
Calvinism rejects that such change in God’s mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of “before” creation means “before” and illogically accepts that changes in God’s mind exist and don’t exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God’s mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.
Only Dynamic Omniscience offers the idea that God’s mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as “will be” was known only as “will be” in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as “fulfilled”. Those declared as “might be” are only known as “might be”. He will freely choose to cause or permit one “might be” to change in His mind to a “will be” and another “might be” into a “won’t be/could have been”.
The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a falsehood… or that changes happening in God’s mind is imperfection is also a falsehood. God’s Word counters clearly those falsehoods. And God’s mind cannot believe falsehoods as truths.
br.d
Hello Jean-Atntoine
.
One thing you need to bear in mind – is that if God decrees everything that comes to pass within creation – then Adam was not granted choice in the matter of anything.
.
If everything is already *FIXED* and predestined by infallible decree – that decree does not grant ALTERNATIVES.
Therefore – ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation.
Therefore – ALTERNATIVES do not exist for man to choose between
.
Therefore – if it was decreed that Adam would infallibly eat the fruit – then the ALTERNATIVE option was not granted to Adam.
Thus Adam was only granted ONE option – which he had NO CHOICE in the matter of.
.
So the question boils down to whether or not you believe man is granted the function of choice.
blessings!
br.d
Hello, I agree with this article, but how can we understand Adam’s sin and the plan of salvation? God did not determine sin, but knew that Adam would choose from all eternity to sin and therefore decreed salvation in Jesus Christ? do we have to understand everything with God’s omniscience?
br.d
Hello chrtien and welcome
.
You ask a very sincere and thoughtful question!
.
Many Christians have asked the same exact question – and that question has been debated among many academic Christians who take seriously the implications of the possible answers to that question.
.
It turns out – there are for the most part – 4 different schools of thought on the answer.
.
1) We have Calvinism – in which there is a God who does not have knowledge of what [X] will be in the future unless he decrees what [X] will be in the future. He therefore does not have foreknowledge per the orthodox understanding of foreknowledge. He knows what [X] will be in the future by “A-Posteriori” knowledge (knowledge after the fact). He knows what [X] will be in the future – simply by knowing what he decreed in eternity past.
.
A consequence of this position – is that man is never granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything – because everything is 100% predestined in the past by infallible decree. And an infallible decree does not grant ALTERNATIVES. Thus there are no ALTERNATIVES granted to man in the matter of anything. Thus man does not have a CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
All of the other views reject Calvinism’s view – are almost all identical – in that within these views ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose between – and thus man is granted the function of CHOICE:
.
2) We have “Simple Foreknowledge”. In this position God has foreknowledge according to the orthodox understanding of foreknowledge. He has the ability to look into the future and know what the future will be while granting ALTERNATIVES to man and granting man CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES.
.
3) We have what is called “Open Theism” which is generally stated as a view in which God chose to create a world that included free agents, and thus a world where ALTERNATIVES are real. The future is pre-settled to whatever degree God wants to pre-settle it and to whatever degree the inevitable consequences of the choices of created agents have pre-settled it. But the future is also open to whatever degree agents are free to choose between ALTERNATIVES. And the choices man makes are turned into actualities.
.
4) We have what is called “Molinism” which is generally stated as a view in which God grants Libertarian choice to man. Which means he grants ALTERNATIVES to man to choose between – and grants man choice between those ALTERNATIVES. But he himself decrees the circumstances in which man will be placed.
.
So primarily – these views are all focused on the question of whether man is granted CHOICE or not.
In Calvinism – the doctrine stipulates that NO ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose between.
And if any ALTERNATIVES did exist – (which is logically impossible) man would not have any control over his brain in order to be the one to make those choices.
.
All of the other views – are views in which ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose between – and man is granted the function of choice.
.
The essential difference between all of the NON-Calvinist views – really centers on the MECHANICS of how man is granted choice.
.
Blessings!
br.d
wow thank you for this detailed answer!
br.d
You’re very welcome – and thank you! :-]
Please feel free to ask any questions you may have.
.
blessings!
br.d