Why do both Calvinists and Provisionists get so frustrated with the inane doctrinal beliefs and the harmful immoral behavior of others? I find myself agreeing with many of my Calvinistic brother’s quotes on social media about the ever-growing ills of our secular society. I share in their frustrations and join with them in their appeals for Christians to stand against the tide of secularism and outright godlessness so often prevalent in our world today.
But, to be honest, I cannot help wonder how my Calvinistic brother’s expressions of frustration toward the state of the world are warranted. Given their belief that “God has sovereignly and unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass for the praise of His own glory,” (WCF III.1) it seems that their expressions of rebuke and dismay are misdirected if they are to remain consistent with their doctrine. Why align the decisive cause of all things to the Self-glorifying decree of God on the one hand while rebuking people for merely doing what God unchangeably decreed them to do on the other?
The world is exactly as God decreed it to be and could not be otherwise, right? Surely, in lamenting the state of the world, the Calvinist is not suggesting God’s eternal decree has been thwarted. It seems to be the consistent Calvinist only has two rational options.
Misdirected Frustration
The first option is this: Shouldn’t a consistent Calvinist direct his frustrations toward God rather than the world? According to the claims of Calvin, it is God who determined the bad beliefs and behaviors Calvinists are lamenting. You may want to suggest; “But you haven’t read Romans 9, Leighton! The answer to your question is: Who are you to answer back to God?”
You may be surprised to hear that I have, indeed, read Romans 9. I wrote my doctoral dissertation and a book about it, in fact. The question for Calvinists is, “Have you objectively considered interpretations of Romans 9 other than what the Calvinistic tradition has taught you?” In my experience, few Calvinists are even aware of what scholars on “the other side” say about their favorite proof texts and rarely take the time to objectively consider another perspective. And, do you know what!? That frustrates me because I believe they could do otherwise. I don’t believe God has predestined them to interpret Romans 9 wrongly, so it’s perfectly rational for me to be frustrated with them when they do so.
But, where is the rationale for a Calvinist to express frustration about my beliefs regarding Romans 9? Shouldn’t they express their frustration with the One they claim is calling the shots? And when they do express this frustration, shouldn’t we respond to them by simply quoting Romans 9 out of its context by saying, “Who are you O man to talk back to God?” If God forms Leighton into a Provisionist rather than a Calvinist, who are you to question Him? 
Take a Deep Breath and Accept It
The only other rational option is to become at peace with the state of the world. You don’t have to take my word for it, the co-host of the popular Just Thinking Podcast, Darrel B. Harrison puts it this way:
Be at peace with any circumstance and any outcome. So, if you feel angry about the number of aborted babies in America, or feel worried about political climate, or even if your child dies tragically in a car accident…or maybe just some good ‘ol frustration at fellow Christians teaching bad theology…you shouldn’t. You should be at peace with everything.
Of course, there is already a philosophy that expresses his moral imperative. It’s called Stoicism:
Strikingly similar to the ethic described by Mr. Harrison.
What do you think, reader? It seems to me the only grounding for angst regarding the state of the world, and those who teach false doctrine in the Church, is if people could do otherwise.
If people cannot do otherwise, then pour your frustration on to the One who ultimately decided the state of the world or recognize your frustration as inappropriate in light of God’s meticulous Providence and become stoically at peace.
And of course every single word of your article above was unchangeably ordained as part of “whatsoever comes to pass”, so no Calvinist can consistently object to it.
Welcome Pastor Loz
And yes!!! You get the picture!
The key word there is “consistently” – as in “Logically Consistent” :-]
Pastor Loz writes, “And of course every single word of your article above was unchangeably ordained as part of “whatsoever comes to pass”, so no Calvinist can consistently object to it.”
Do you mean to say that God could have been ignorant of the article or of any word in it prior to its appearance in this forum? Could not God have ordained it for people to discuss and investigate much like the Bereans did upon hearing the things Paul preached?
This is called Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
For the Calvinist – the most SACRED AND DIVINE TRUTH in the universe is:
1) Every part of WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is the direct byproduct of infallible decrees.
2) Every part of WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is the IMMUTABLE will of Calvin’s god.
3) Every part of WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is the MANIFEST GLORY of Calvin’s god
But they are to go about their office AS-IF the most sacred and divine proposition in the universe is FALSE
That’s why it is called *AS-IF* thinking .
But isn’t the Calvinists’ vocalised frustration at the state of the world also something which is divinely decreed?
Exactly!
And the doctrine tells them everything that is infallibly decreed – is the Divine Will and for the express purpose of Divine Glory And they therefore should rejoice is whatsoever comes to pass.
But they know how that would look to the Non-Calvinist Bible reader
They know the Non-Calvinist Bible reader would reject such things.
So the Calvinist is forced to do what Elijah spoke of.
They are forced to halt between two opinions.
They are to hold the underlying foundational doctrine of Exhaustive Determinism as TRUE
But they must go about living and speaking *AS-IF* that doctrine is FALSE
That is why Calvinist language is a DOUBLE-SPEAK language.
Everything is determined by the Lord from eternity, including all who are saved, have we not been predestined by the Lord? Have we not been chosen according to God’s foreknowledge? Is it not written in Is.46:10, “I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please”? Was God unjust during the time that billions of people died without the knowledge of Jesus during the time (4 thousand Years) that Israel was the chosen people and only they had access to salvation? If Calvinists are so wrong what explains the fact that the greatest preachers of the Gospel have always been Calvinists? We always have a hard time remembering the name of an Arminian.
Filemon, You must new here. But it’s NOT nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it seem. I suggest you read the other posts/comment sections of this blog, for much of what you brought up has already been addressed. I can sense the “mic drop” in your comment, but it’s so nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it seem.
And you know the saying “Two wrong don’t make a right”?
Well, “Many wrong preachers doesn’t make their theology right.” Just because there’s a lot of bad theology going around out there by many people (who spread it to many more people) doesn’t automatically make them more right in their views. (And am I to assume you’ve never heard of Billy Graham then?)
And “greatest” is a debatable, subjective term. If you think it’s “great” to spread a theology that teaches that God only loves a few people, that Jesus only died for those few people, that everyone else was created for damnation, that God causes sin and evil for His pleasure and glory, that He punishes man for the sin He caused them to do, and that nothing we do really matters because it’s all been predestined from the beginning and because God controls everything we do and think and decide, … then sure, I guess you could say that many of the “greatest” preachers of the (Calvinist) gospel were Calvinists.
[And yet, I wonder why these Calvinists bother to preach the (Calvinist) gospel because, in their theology, the elect are already chosen for salvation and regenerated (saved and born again) before ever hearing the gospel, and the non-elect can never respond to the gospel because they won’t be regenerated. In Calvinism, what does the gospel accomplish anyway, other than to make the elected people who are already saved realize that they are already saved? Calvinism is satanically brilliant, using the gospel to destroy the gospel!]
And I’m not saying that Billy Graham was an Arminian, just that he wasn’t Calvinist. It’s wrong to assume there are only two types of Christian theology, Calvinist or Arminian.
I reread my first paragraph again, and it got all messed up as I added changes to it. It should read: “You must be new here…. but it’s NOT nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it seem.” (If the moderator can, could you fix this for me? Thanks)
Heather writes, ” In Calvinism, what does the gospel accomplish anyway, other than to make the elected people who are already saved realize that they are already saved?”
Calvinists understand that God uses the preaching of the gospel to draw His elect out of the world. Is in not God who calls men to preach the gospel – to plant and water – when it is God who gives the increase. Does anyone have anything that he has not received from God?
Rhutchin: “Calvinists understand that God uses the preaching of the gospel to draw His elect out of the world. ”
Like I said: They are already elected/saved. So the gospel, in Calvinism, has no power to save anyone. All it does is make the elect realize they are elect. The gospel, in Calvinism, has no effect on anyone’s belief or predestined destiny. Leave it to Satan to find a way to use the gospel to make the gospel superfluous and unnecessary for salvation.
Heather write, “Like I said: They are already elected/saved. So the gospel, in Calvinism, has no power to save anyone.”
Given that God is omniscient and knew the elect and non-elect before He created the world, then there is no denying that some are destined for salvation and some are not. However, all people still start out the same – each is born with a corrupt nature and without faith. There is a time and place for those whom God will save to be given a new heart and then faith to believe in Christ. The preaching of the gospel is the means that God uses to bring His elect to faith in Christ. No gospel; no salvation. The dispute between Calvinists and non-Calvinists who say that God is omniscient is how a person comes to be one of God’s elect.
If you want to deny these things, you may do so.
rhutchin
By God’s decree as a consequence of Adam’s sin
br.d
Adam’s sin – which Calvin’s god’s infallible decree did NOT PERMIT Adam to NOT commit. :-]
rhutchin: “By God’s decree as a consequence of Adam’s sin”
br.d: “Adam’s sin – which Calvin’s god’s infallible decree did NOT PERMIT Adam to NOT commit. ”
This because Adam was made imperfect and that imperfection was enshrined in God’s decree and explains why Adam could not do other than he did.
rhutchin
This because Adam was made imperfect
br.d
And no one here knows how that INFALLIBLY came to pass – wink wink!!! ;-D
John Calvin
-quote
For it did not take place BY REASON OF NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation . . . .
Since this CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from……god
(Institutes)
-quote
men can deliberately do nothing unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
I am not replying for Rhutchin’s sake, but for others who might be reading. And I know this has been covered many times, so I’ll keep it as brief as I can. (And then Rhutchin can have the last word.)
Calvinists don’t just think that God foreknew who would be saved and who wouldn’t. They believe God predestined who would be saved and who wouldn’t. In Calvinism, He essentially bestowed salvation on the elect before the beginning of time. Therefore, their salvation is not the result of their response to the gospel; their belief in the gospel (caused/forced on them by Calvi-god) is the result of their election/salvation. This flips the Bible on its head.
[And before Rhutchin denies that Calvi-god “causes/forces” faith on the elect, here is a different comment of his from a different post: “The work of the Holy Spirit to give a person a new birth could be likened to giving a person a drug. In both cases, the person is changed, and the change is irresistibly wrought on the person. The person has no idea what happened – all he knows is that one minute he hates God and the next minute he doesn’t…. The new birth is accomplished by the Holy Spirit without the knowledge of the person, so it is irresistible.” In Calvinism, you don’t do anything to become saved. You don’t love God because you chose to or wanted to, or because of the gospel, or out of gratitude for what He did for us or how much He loves us. It just happens TO you, without your decision or cooperation or even your knowledge. If that’s not “cause/force” then I don’t know what is.]
And note that Rhutchin says “The preaching of the gospel is the means that God uses to bring His elect to faith in Christ.” He’s trying to make it sound like he (like Calvinists) believe that faith comes from hearing the gospel, that the gospel leads to faith.
But let’s explore other things he’s said in different comment sections:
“The gospel is the source of faith and that faith then exercises belief in the gospel. We have no faith without the hearing of the gospel. The gospel produces faith. That faith is then fueled by the hearing of the gospel to believe in Christ.”
This is a doozy! So here he says you can’t have faith without the gospel, that the gospel comes before – and leads to – faith. But he also says, in the exact same sentences, that faith has to come before – that it leads to – belief in the gospel: “faith then exercises belief in the gospel” and “That faith is then fueled by the hearing of the gospel…” (in order for faith to be fueled by something, it has to be there first).
And he also says, in a different comment: “In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.” Here again he says that faith has to be there first, in order for the elect to be able to respond to the gospel and be saved.
So let me get this straight: In Calvinism, faith is needed for believing the gospel AND the gospel is needed for having faith!?! Yep, makes perfect sense, Calvinists!
Rhutchin also says in a different comment section: “The gospel is the means by which a person is born again, receives faith, and believes.”
So he says here that the gospel comes before – and leads to – being born again and having faith. But this is a clear contradiction of what he has said in other comments at Soteriology 101 about how we have to be born again first, before we can hear the gospel and have faith: “The new birth makes it possible for a person to hear the gospel” and “Calvinists actually say that faith results from a work performed by God in the heart of the individual (i.e. the new birth or regeneration)…” and (as he just said above) “There is a time and place for those whom God will save to be given a new heart and then faith to believe in Christ.”
Notice that in those comments being born again comes first, then hearing the gospel, and then having faith. Whereas earlier he said it’s the gospel first, then born again, then faith: “The gospel is the means by which a person is born again, receives faith, and believes.”
So let me get this straight: In Calvinism, you need to hear the gospel to be born again AND you need to be born again to hear the gospel!?! Yep, makes perfect sense, Calvinists!
(And yet Calvinists wonder why we don’t don’t trust what they say and hate debating them! This is why we say that debating a Calvinist is like wrestling a greased pig. Never trust what a Calvinist says. They say what’s convenient in one place, but contradict it in another. Or they say one thing that sounds biblical, but have so many secret layers and different meanings of words that it completely changes what they first said.)
And now I will let Rhutchin have the last word.
Heather writes, “Therefore, [the Elect’s] salvation is not the result of their response to the gospel; their belief in the gospel (caused/forced on them by Calvi-god) is the result of their election/salvation. ”
The elect do respond to the gospel and do so because of the faith conveyed to them through hearing the gospel. Without faith, a person would think the gospel to be foolishness and would reject the gospel. Receiving faith is likened to the blind man receiving his sight – he sees everything differently after receiving his sight. So, a person who receives faith sees the gospel differently that when he had no faith. More important, a person with faith willfully accepts the gospel and does so joyfully. So, Heather is right to say God forces people to accept the gospel by giving them faith but they are not forced to do something that is against their will as their will is now affected by the faith they were given.
Then, “So let me get this straight: In Calvinism, faith is needed for believing the gospel AND the gospel is needed for having faith!?! ”
Isn’t this true for non-Calvinists also. Without faith, does anyone believe the gospel? Without the preaching of the gospel, can anyone receive faith? [We should understand that when the gospel speaks of faith, it means faith in Christ.]
Then, “Notice that in those comments being born again comes first, then hearing the gospel, and then having faith. Whereas earlier he said it’s the gospel first, then born again, then faith: “The gospel is the means by which a person is born again, receives faith, and believes.”
The gospel makes it possible to receive faith; a person cannot receive faith apart from hearing the gospel. However, Peter writes, “love one another from the heart fervently: having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which lives and remains forever. ” While it is the Holy Spirit who initiates the born again experience, He does it through the gospel. So, apart from hearing the gospel, a person cannot be born again. However, it is by being born again that a person is able to see the kingdom of heaven and then to enter the kingdom of heaven – i.e., to be saved. A person cannot be born again apart from hearing the gospel and being born again enables faith which also comes by hearing the gospel. What seems beyond dispute that the born again experience and faith both precede a person entering the kingdom of heaven or being saved.
If Heather can explain this better than she understands the Calvinists to do, I hope she will do so.
Filemon says: “Was God unjust during the time that billions of people died without the knowledge of Jesus during the time (4 thousand Years) that Israel was the chosen people and only they had access to salvation?”
God says: “No foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord should say, ‘The Lord will exclude me from his people …’. For the Lord says this: ‘… As for the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to become his servants – all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold firmly to my covenant – I will bring them to my holy mountain and let them rejoice in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on my altar, for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.'” (Isaiah 56:3-8)
The study notes in my Bible (Tony Evans Study Bible) says that “Gentiles who believed in the God of Israel and bound themselves to Him had a place within His covenant community in the Old Testament dispensation. Here they were assured that they would also share in the kingdom with Israel, including sharing in Israel’s regathering to enjoy God’s salvation and blessings under Christ’s righteous rule.”
Also, James 2:25 says that Rahab (a Gentile woman) was justified by works. She is listed among the “giants of faith” in Hebrews 11:31, yet she was a Gentile (and a prostitute). If only Israel could be saved in Old Testament times, how could the Bible say she was justified (saved)?
Do you know how the Tony Evans’ study notes answers the question of “How can Rahab be recognized alongside Abraham and Moses as a hero in the Hall of Faith?”
He says – and all you Calvinists should love this – “It’s simple. God tells us ‘Your ways are not my ways’ (Isa. 55:8)”
I love that! (Tony Evans is a far better theologian than any Calvinist theologian out there. In fact, he’s the pastor we watch online – for years now – after leaving our Calvinist church. Because he understands God’s Word as it was written.)
And I wonder how Israel – in those 4 thousand Old Testament years – could have had saving knowledge of Jesus (according to Filemon) if Jesus didn’t come until the New Testament, 2 thousand years ago. Interesting!
Filemon also says: “If Calvinists are so wrong what explains the fact that the greatest preachers of the Gospel have always been Calvinists?”
Heather says: If Calvinists are so right then why do they keep getting Scripture so wrong?
Filemon:
“If Calvinists are so wrong what explains the fact that the greatest preachers of the Gospel have always been Calvinists?”
br.d
My question to Filemon is this:
Do you think telling people that the reason they were created/designed – is more than likely for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure – would result in a successful preaching of the Gospel?
If that is not what they preached – then they didn’t preach the gospel of Calvinism.
That answers your question. :-]
br.d
My question to Filemon is this:
Do you think telling people that the reason they were created/designed – is more than likely for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure – would result in a successful preaching of the Gospel?
If that is not what they preached – then they didn’t preach the gospel of Calvinism.
roland:
Br.d, there is no such thing as the “gospel of Calvinism.” There is only the gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s what Calvinist preach. To say that there is a “gospel of Calvinism” is to ignore Christian history that includes such men as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, two Calvinist preachers who were at the forefront of the Great Awakening. Calvinists don’t tell people “that the reason they were created/designed – is more than likely for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure –…” That’s not how Calvinists preach the Gospel. But, if someone was to ask if that is what the Bible teaches, we won’t shy away from it either.
The doctrine of hell is one of the primary reasons many people reject Christianity. Do non-calvinists preachers tell their hearers that if they reject the Gospel they will suffer for eternity and be cast into a lake of fire? Or do they “hide” the “bad part” of their theology? If so, then they’re not telling the truth. Under your standard, non-calvinists are just as guilty of Calvinism.
br.d
If that is not what they preached – then they didn’t preach the gospel of Calvinism.
roland
yes, that is not what they preached because there is no gospel of Calvinism. I would encourage you to read some Calvinist sermons to get an understanding of what we really preach and teach.
Roland
Br.d, there is no such thing as the “gospel of Calvinism.”
br.d
Now you are simply playing SEMANTIC games
If they did not preach that – then they did not preach that which is TRUE for Calvinism.
Which simply shows – they had to EVADE telling THE WHOLE TRUTH (according to Calvinism) in order be successful.
br.d
Now you are simply playing SEMANTIC games
roland
I’m not the one who is claiming there is a “gospel of Calvinism.” You are saying that. I’d like to know of a prominent Calvinist that has said what you are saying we say. All the Calvinists that I have read would deny what you are saying. I’m asking for evidence of your statement.
br.d
If they did not preach that – then they did not preach that which is TRUE for Calvinism.
Which simply shows – they had to EVADE telling THE WHOLE TRUTH (according to Calvinism) in order be successful.
roland
We don’t evade our doctrines. You can find plenty quotes from Calvinists who affirm our beliefs. That’s not what you accused Calvinists of. You accused us of not preaching the ‘gospel of Calvinism’ but now you are saying we don’t tell the whole truth. We don’t deny our doctrine, if someone denies Calvinism, then they are not a Calvinist, at least generally because I know some claim to be 4 point or 3 point Calvinist.
Roland
I’m not the one who is claiming there is a “gospel of Calvinism.” You are saying that.
br.d
And how many Calvinists over the years have declared the non-Calvinist gospel to be a “gospel of man”?
If there can be a “gospel of man” then there can be a “gospel of Calvinism”
What’s good for the goose – is good for the gander.
Unless you are ok with a false balance? :-]
br.d writes, “If there can be a “gospel of man” then there can be a “gospel of Calvinism”
There is the gospel of Jesus Christ and there is the gospel of man. All Calvinists preach the gospel of Jesus Christ – even the parts about the sheep and the goats and the wide and narrow roads where many find the wide road and few the narrow road. They preach that God gives the increase from their preaching and that all that God gives to Christ will come to Christ.
rhuthcin
There is the gospel of Jesus Christ and there is the gospel of man. All Calvinists preach the gospel of Jesus Christ
br.d
Nah!
If the Calvinist can call the non-Calvinist gospel the “gospel of man” – then the non-Calvinist can call the Calvinist gospel the “gospel of Calvinism”.
Unless a false balance is ok for you? :-]
br.d writes, “If the Calvinist can call the non-Calvinist gospel the “gospel of man” – then the non-Calvinist can call the Calvinist gospel the “gospel of Calvinism”.”
There is the gospel of Jesus Christ (or the gospel of Calvinism, if you must) and its antithesis, the gospel of man. If the non-Calvinist subscribes to a gospel of man, he can call the Calvinist gospel the “gospel of Calvinism”.
br.d
This is a case in which doubling-down comes off looking like dumbing-down! :-]
If the Calvinist can call the non-Calvinist gospel the “gospel of man” – then the non-Calvinist can call the Calvinist gospel the “gospel of Calvinism”. Unless a false balance is OK for you?
But then – since you keep repeating the same thing over and over – apparently a false balance is ok for you.
Well said, Br.d.: “Do you think telling people that the reason they were created/designed – is more than likely for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure – would result in a successful preaching of the Gospel? If that is not what they preached – then they didn’t preach the gospel of Calvinism.”
The reason they are so “successful” is because they aren’t being totally honest about the bad, unbiblical parts of their theology. Anyone can be successful if they hide/disguise the parts of their theology that will make people reject it.
Well said Heather!
The criminal who has the ability to hide his crimes is successful.
And we already know that Calvinists go about their office *AS-IF* the underlying proposition of Calvinism is FALSE.
And every Calvinist intuitively knows that he must.
Because if he doesn’t – he won’t be successful :-]
br.d writes, “we already know that Calvinists go about their office *AS-IF* the underlying proposition of Calvinism is FALSE.
And every Calvinist intuitively knows that he must.”
No, the Calvinist goes about as if the underlying proposition of Calvinism is TRUE – for it is in that truth, that God does as He pleases and uses their preaching to accomplish His purpose, that gives them encouragement to preach the gospel.
br.d
We already know that Calvinists go about their office *AS-IF* the underlying proposition of Calvinism is FALSE.
And every Calvinist intuitively knows that he must.”
rhutchin
No, the Calvinist goes about as if the underlying proposition of Calvinism is TRUE
br.d
Oh yea – that explains the consistent stream of posts you make – in which you follow John Calvin’s instructions – going about *AS-IF* something wasn’t determined in every part.
Good one rhutchin! ;
This one reminds me of a river in Egypt called DE-NIAL! ;-D
rhutchin: “No, the Calvinist goes about as if the underlying proposition of Calvinism is TRUE”
br.d: “Oh yea – that explains the consistent stream of posts you make – in which you follow John Calvin’s instructions – going about *AS-IF* something wasn’t determined in every part.”
My posts are consistent with God having a perfect understanding of His creation so that everything in His creation was determined by God at the creation.
br.d
Oh yea – that explains the consistent stream of posts you make – in which you follow John Calvin’s instructions – going about *AS-IF* something wasn’t determined in every part.”
rhutchin
My posts are consistent with God having a perfect understanding of His creation so that everything in His creation was determined by God at the creation.
br.d
And Bill Clinton didn’t have X with that woman Monica!
The hilarious part is – all we have to do is wait for you to provide another example
Because you can’t stop yourself from providing them! :-]
Heather
The reason they are so “successful” is because they aren’t being totally honest about the bad, unbiblical parts of their theology. Anyone can be successful if they hide/disguise the parts of their theology that will make people reject it.
Roland
The reason Calvinist preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, two preachers who were at the forefront of the Great Awakening, were so successful is that they relied and trusted on God and God’s Word to do the work of salvation. The openly declared God’s truth without hiding anything.
Have you ever read “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards? If you have or even plan on to, I’d like to know what Jonathan Edwards is hiding about the “bad parts” of his theology.
Here’s some quotes from George Whitefield, this is what he preached to crowds as large as 20,000. Whitefield was a Calvinist yet a fervent evangelist crossing the Atlantic Ocean from England to America multiple times to preach to the lost.
This, however, is my comfort, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday today, and forever.” He saw me from all eternity; He gave me being; He called me in time; He freely justified me through faith in His blood; He has in part sanctified me by His spirit; He will preserve me underneath His everlasting arms, til time shall be no more. Oh the blessedness of these evangelical truths! These are indeed gospel; they are glad tidings of great joy to all that have ears to hear.”
“Whoever reads the gospel with a single eye, and sincere intentions, will find, that our blessed Lord took all opportunities of reminding his disciples that His Kingdom was not of this world; that His doctrine was a doctrine of the Cross; and that their professing themselves to be His followers, would call them to a constant state of voluntary suffering and self-denial.”
On idleness after becoming a Christian: “A true faith in Jesus Christ will not suffer us to be idle. No, it is an active, lively, restless principle; it fills the heart, so that it cannot be easy ’til it is doing something for Jesus Christ.”
“If your souls were not immortal, and you in danger of losing them, I would not thus speak unto you; but the love of your souls constrains me to speak: methinks this would constrain me to speak unto you forever.”
On relying on God as the source of salvation, not ourselves:
“What! Get to heaven on your own strength? Why, you might as well try to climb to the moon on a rope of sand!”
If you want to know what Gospel Calvinists have historically preached and what we presently preach, then I would encourage you to read some Calvinist authors, just a suggestion.
Roland
The reason Calvinist preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, two preachers who were at the forefront of the Great Awakening, were so successful is that they relied and trusted on God
br.d
Roland – did they tell people that in all probability those people were specifically designed/created for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure?
If they did not tell them that – then the gospel they preached was not true to Calvinism.
br.d
Roland – did they tell people that in all probability those people were specifically designed/created for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure?
If they did not tell them that – then the gospel they preached was not true to Calvinism.
roland
I would like to see a quote from a prominent Calvinist who identifies the Gospel as you claim we do. What Calvinists has ever said, “the Gospel is this: the people in all probability were specifically designed/created for eternal torment in a lake of fire for God’s good pleasure.”
Unless you can show me a quote, it’s all conjecture that Calvinists preach that or are even required to preach that. Calvinists’ examples of preaching is taken from the Word of God.
Roland
I would like to see a quote from a prominent Calvinist who identifies the Gospel as you claim we do.
br.d
Roland – what is the definition of LYING BY OMISSION?
br.d
Roland – what is the definition of LYING BY OMISSION?
roland
Now you are evading what I ask for about a Calvinist quote of the Gospel. You won’t find one because that is not what Calvinists believe, preach, or teach. Now you are accusing Calvinists of lying by omission.
Calvinist theology is vast. We have doctrines about everything, God, Christ, Scripture, Anthropology, Church, Sin, etc. Unless I misunderstand what you are saying, it seems like you are saying that if we don’t tell a person EVERYTHING we believe as Calvinists, then we are LYING BY OMISSION. That’s a high standard that I don’t think anybody can meet. I don’t even think the apostles met that standard when they were preaching in the book of Acts. Did the apostles tell everybody everything about the Gospel or even Jesus Christ every time they preached?
br.d
Roland – what is the definition of LYING BY OMISSION?
roland
Now you are evading what I ask for about a Calvinist quote of the Gospel.
You won’t find one because – that is not what Calvinists believe……
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
God knows what he has determined to do with regard to us
If he has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time
If he has DOOMED US TO DEATH it is vain for us to fight against it.
Individuals are born….DOOMED FROM THE WOMB to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction
(Institutes)
For you to tell me – that is not what Calvinists believe – is not merely lying by omission – its outright lying.
Its the equivalent of saying John Calvin is not a Calvinist
What the problem Roland – why can’t we speak the TRUTH?
Perhaps because we would not be successful if we did?
JOHN CALVIN’S GOSPEL
John Calvin
-quote
God knows what he has determined to do with regard to us
If he has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time
If he has DOOMED US TO DEATH it is vain for us to fight against it.
Individuals are born….DOOMED FROM THE WOMB to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction
(Institutes)
That is part of the “gospel” for Calvinism
If a Calvinist does not preach this – then the “gospel” they are preaching is not TRUE to Calvinism
br.d
That is part of the “gospel” for Calvinism
If a Calvinist does not preach this – then the “gospel” they are preaching is not TRUE to Calvinism
roland
Where’s the other part of the quote where John Calvin says, “THIS IS THE GOSPEL God knows what he has determined to do with regard to us
If he has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time
If he has DOOMED US TO DEATH it is vain for us to fight against it.”
br.d
If a Calvinist does not preach this – then the “gospel” they are preaching is not TRUE to Calvinism
roland
Which prominent Calvinist holds to this position that the true Gospel must include God’s decree to damn some people to hell?
I won’t deny what Calvin said, as it is part of our theology, but I will deny that is “the gospel of Calvinism.”
Roland
Where’s the other part of the quote where John Calvin says, “THIS IS THE GOSPEL God knows what he has determined to do with regard to us
If he has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time
If he has DOOMED US TO DEATH it is vain for us to fight against it.”
br.d
Any intelligent person knows – the term “gospel” is in refers to things having to do with salvation.
Hence John Calvin’s quotes are part of Calvinism’s FULL representation of the “gospel”
The question then is – why doesn’t the Calvinist tell the WHOLE TRUTH?
Roland
Which prominent Calvinist holds to this position that the true Gospel must include God’s decree to damn some people to hell?
br.d
What you are asking here is – which prominent Calvinist holds a position of the gospel that is TRUE to Calvinism?
Obviously – success in this case is accomplished by NOT being TRUE to Calvinism.
And that is the answer to Filemon’s question
br.d
Any intelligent person knows – the term “gospel” is in refers to things having to do with salvation.
Hence John Calvin’s quotes are part of Calvinism’s FULL representation of the “gospel
roland
There is no such thing as “Calvinism’s FULL representation of the gospel” in the manner in which you are stating it. It’s just not true. That’s the problem I have with what you are saying.
br.d
The question then is – why doesn’t the Calvinist tell the WHOLE TRUTH?
roland
the WHOLE TRUTH according to who? According to what YOU believe Calvinists hold as the WHOLE TRUTH? Or according to what Calvinists KNOW and BELIEVE is the WHOLE TRUTH?
I reiterate that you are accusing Calvinists of something we don’t believe without evidence.
Roland
There is no such thing as “Calvinism’s FULL representation of the gospel” in the manner in which YOU are stating it. It’s just not true. That’s the problem I have with what you are saying.
br.d
The manner in which I am stating – or the manner in which Calvinism – via John Calvin is stating?
Why do you need to evade the TRUTH?
roland
the WHOLE TRUTH according to who?
br.d
I give you quotes from the father of Calvinism – and you say according to who
Why do you need to evade the TRUTH?
Roland
I reiterate that you are accusing Calvinists of something WE don’t believe without evidence.
br.d
This just tells me you do not include John Calvin in your definition of WE
Which is just one more example of playing SEMANTIC games.
Why do you need to evade the TRUTH?
BTW
What did you say the definition of lying by omission is?
But perhaps you won’t want to answer – so I’ll provide it for you
Lying by omission:
Omission lying can be defined as the deliberate withholding of pertinent facts or information.
Incomplete information is provided to ensure the recipient will act differently than they would if they had been given the full information.
In other words, it is deceiving someone not by what is said, but by WHAT IS NOT SAID
So why does the Calvinist preacher need to be deceptive in order to be successful at preaching the gospel?
BTW
What did you say the definition of lying by omission is?
roland
I didn’t provide a definition because I don’t see the relevance of it. But since you provided a definition, thank you, you have only dug a deeper hole for yourself.
First, you wrote earlier that there is a “gospel of Calvinism.” I ask for a quote from a prominent Calvinist who defines a “gospel of Calvinism.” You have not provided it because we do not believe such a thing exists as a “gospel of Calvinism.” You have provided an answer. You have no evidence that we believe such a thing.
Second, you then accused Calvinists of lying by omission. So, according to your accusation, we DELIBERATELY WITHHOLD PERTINENT FACTS OR INFORMATION SO THAT THE RECIPIENT WILL ACT DIFFERENTLY IF THEY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION.
Now I ask: when has a prominent Calvinists written or said, “I am deliberately withholding the doctrine of God’s decree so that the hearers will not reject what I am saying?”
I’ve written before that we don’t hide anything. You can find our beliefs in our confessions, catechisms, sermons, books, articles, etc. We openly declare our doctrines.
Roland
I didn’t provide a definition because I don’t see the relevance of it.
br.d
This tells me you don’t see the relevance
Which simply means – the shoe that fits – we refuse to wear.
Roland
So, according to your accusation, we DELIBERATELY WITHHOLD PERTINENT FACTS OR INFORMATION SO THAT THE RECIPIENT WILL ACT DIFFERENTLY IF THEY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION.
br.d
When something is the TRUTH – it is not an accusation :-]
Why can’t you tell the TRUTH?
Roland
Now I ask: when has a prominent Calvinists written or said, “I am deliberately withholding the doctrine of God’s decree so that the hearers will not reject what I am saying”
br.d
DUH!
When did Bill Clinton say: “I had Xual relations with that woman Monica Lewinsky”
Of course he didn’t say that!
Because he didn’t tell the TRUTH!
Same thing with Calvinists.
The good news here is – while you claim I am digging myself into a deeper hole – the SOT101 reader can discern the games you are playing.
And that brings us back to the same question.
Why can’t you tell the TRUTH?
I love it – how God can turn things for the good! :-]
br.d
Roland – this last exchange with you regarding Calvinist’s FULL representation of the gospel – reveals that your assertion that Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism – is a fabrication which you invented.
Your strategy follows:
1) You present a CHERRY-PICKED representation of Calvinism
2) You claim it is the ONLY TRUE representation of Calvinism
3) Your CHERRY-PICKED representation of Calvinism strategically omits information that Dr. Flowers does not omit
Since Dr. Flowers’s representation is not identical to your representation – you can then claim Dr. Flowers is misrepresenting Calvinism.
The whole strategy here – is simply one big SEMANTIC shell game.
This reveals – a whole lot more about Calvinism – than anything else.
br.d
Since Dr. Flowers’s representation is not identical to your representation – you can then claim Dr. Flowers is misrepresenting Calvinism
roland
No, I never said Dr. Flower’s representation needs to be IDENTICAL to mine. But it should he close. Let me give you some examples of Dr. Flowers REPRESENTATION of Calvinism and Calvinists. The quotes are taken from Dr. Flowers’s youtube video Saved by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE?
“But again, Calvinists have to paint the Arminian or the non-Calvinist or the provisionist in the worst possible light in order to sell the very difficult pill of reprobation that they’re trying to get you to swallow. I know it’s a pejorative way of putting it.” 14:30 mark
This is what Dr. Flowers says in the video. He knows he’s putting our position in a “PEJORATIVE WAY” but he doesn’t care. He doesn’t like it when Calvinists do it but it’s ok for him?
At another point in the video Dr. Flowers says that James White is equating belief with merits. Later on in the video around, 15:45, White clearly says that an autonomous act in belief is “not an act that merits or anything else.” White is clearing saying that he does not equate belief as meritorious but Dr. Flowers says he does!
40:05: Dr Flowers and Winger both say White is equaling belief with a work. Flowers says it is implicit but White never even mentions work or hints at it. Yet Dr. Flowers says White is doing this.
That’s the misrepresentation I am saying Dr. Flowers commits.
roland
No, I never said Dr. Flower’s representation needs to be IDENTICAL to mine.
br.d
Well – here you simply continue in the same SEMANTIC game.
You make a distinction between what you say by inference – from what you say by explicit statement.
The good news is – everyone can see the game! :-]
Roland
Leighton Flowers
-quote
“But again, Calvinists have to paint the Arminian or the non-Calvinist or the provisionist in the worst possible light in order to sell the very difficult pill of reprobation that they’re trying to get you to swallow. I know it’s a pejorative way of putting it.” 14:30 mark
This is what Dr. Flowers says in the video. He knows he’s putting our position in a “PEJORATIVE WAY” but he doesn’t care. He doesn’t like it when Calvinists do it but it’s ok for him?
br.d
The fallacy here – is the assumption that the WAY something is enunciated equates a misrepresentation.
I can say “2×3=6” in a pejorative way – but that does not make it FALSE.
Dr. Flowers is absolutely correct – when he says – the difference between his representation and the Calvinists – is simply the fact that the Calvinist representation is strategically designed to paint Calvinism in a light that is calculated as the most acceptable to the recipient.
This is the strategy of the FALSE advertisement.
Highlight the good, camouflage the bad, and hide the ugly.
Roland
At another point in the video Dr. Flowers says that James White is equating belief with merits. Later on in the video around, 15:45, White clearly says that an autonomous act in belief is “not an act that merits or anything else.” White is clearing saying that he does not equate belief as meritorious but Dr. Flowers says he does!
br.d
This just tells you can’t tell the difference between James White’s representation of the Non-Calvinist – and James White’s representation of the Calvinist. When James White was equating belief with merits – he was not representing that as the Calvinist perspective – but as the non-Calvinist persepective.
So what Dr. Flowers was showing there is a consistent STRAW-MAN argument which Calvinists hope they can get away with – in their representation of Non-Calvinism.
So all you’re revealing here is an example of how Calvinists misrepresent others :-]
My argument still stands
Calvinists create a CHERRY-PICKED representation of Calvinism – by omitting critical unpalatable TRUTHS.
And when someone speaks the WHOLE TRUTH – the Calvinist calls it a misrepresentation.
All this tells us – is Calvinists can’t tell the WHOLE TRUTH.
br.d
All this tells us – is Calvinists can’t tell the WHOLE TRUTH.
roland
I show you quotes from a video where Dr. Flowers misrepresents James White
James White “said NOT A”
Leighton Flowers “James White said IS A”
I’m too old to know how to insert a facepalm meme because I’m at a loss for words and thoughts. I show something plainly from a video and I get accused of PLAYING SEMANTICS!!!
roland
I show you quotes from a video where Dr. Flowers misrepresents James White
James White “said NOT A”
Leighton Flowers “James White said IS A”
br.d
If you are referring to the last two quotes you provided – they are not “A vs NOT A”
Simply read my answers
Additionally – since you don’t allow for Calvinism to be scrutinized by LOGIC – (which is not uncommon for Calvinists) then its understandable your familiarity with LOGIC is going to be poor.
Let me ask you a question
The Jehovah’s Witness representation of their doctrine – is that their doctrine is TRUE.
In that regard – is your representation of their doctrine similar, equal to, or close to theirs?
br.d
Additionally – since you don’t allow for Calvinism to be scrutinized by LOGIC – (which is not uncommon for Calvinists) then its understandable your familiarity with LOGIC is going to be poor
roland
How many times do I need restate this: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU USING LOGIC TO PROVE CALVINISM IS WRONG. WHAT I WILL NOT DO IS SUBJECT GOD’S WORD TO LOGIC. I’ve said this at least on three occasions but you insists that I am not in agreement with you.
br.d
Let me ask you a question
The Jehovah’s Witness representation of their doctrine – is that their doctrine is TRUE.
In that regard – is your representation of their doctrine similar, equal to, or close to theirs?
roland
My doctrine is not similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses in the areas that I am familiar with JW doctrine such as God being triune, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, I deny JW annihilation doctrine, I deny JW belief of exclusivity to God, soul sleep, and I’m pretty sure I forgot something.
If you are talking about HOW I represent Calvinism? Is that what you mean? What are you getting at? Are you saying that Calvinists represent their doctrine in the SAME MANNER as JWs?
roland
How many times do I need restate this: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU USING LOGIC TO PROVE CALVINISM IS WRONG. WHAT I WILL NOT DO IS SUBJECT GOD’S WORD TO LOGIC. I’ve said this at least on three occasions but you insists that I am not in agreement with you.
br.d
The problem with this – is that every time I started to apply LOGIC to Calvinism – you said we were going to hit a wall – because for you that would be subjecting LOGIC to scripture.
So this doesn’t fly!
Let me ask you a question
The Jehovah’s Witness representation of their doctrine – is that their doctrine is TRUE.
In that regard – is your representation of their doctrine similar, equal to, or close to theirs?
roland
My doctrine is not similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses ……
br.d
That is beside the point
Please go back and read the question again and please provide an answer.
You can explain why your answer is YEA or NAY if you like
But some kind of YEA or NAY is needed.
br.d
The problem with this – is that every time I started to apply LOGIC to Calvinism – you said we were going to hit a wall – because for you that would be subjecting LOGIC to scripture.
roland
Hopefully I can clear this up. This is the biggest challenge with online discussions: the hearer cannot hear the speaker’s vocal inflections, see the speaker’s facial expression, body language, etc. This challenge is inherent in online discussions.
I have no problem with you applying logic to Calvinism. When you critique a doctrine of Calvinism or prove it ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, etc. I am going to appeal to SCRIPTURE to defend it. Where’s the wall we are going to hit? I believe the wall we will hit is when I begin to respond with Scripture. A back and forth begins with “that’s not what the text means” or “you’re taking it out of context” or “what about this verse that says this” and on and on and on….It can then become an endless exercise of quoting Scripture. I’ve had many of these discussions with JWs and Mormons.
Also, I’m not an evidentialist, a rationalist, a philosopher, a logician, an apologist. When I was in college I took an elective about Christian apologetics. I loved it, I wanted to be an apologist just like William Lane Craig, I learned about the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument for the existence of God. I went out with our church’s outreach team, locked and loaded. I began to realize that I was relying on logic to try to win over sinners to Christ. I abandoned these approaches and embraced a presuppositional approach to evangelism and apologetics.
Presuppositional apologetics argues from the foundations of a worldview. It is not so much concerned with logical analysis, even though it is there, it’s more concerned about exposing the false suppositions of a worldview, belief, doctrine, etc. An example would an atheist who judges moral actions to be horrible, terrible, bad. But where does the atheist get his standard to judge? He has to “borrow” it from the Christian worldview or at least Christian/Judeo standards. That’s how I operate “logically.”
Last thing, remember when I asked you about how you know Jesus is God? I noticed you did not appeal to logic, reason, philosophy, you just seemed to accept it as the best understanding we have. Belief in Jesus is a foundation of Christian theology, it is central. The Bible doesn’t “make an argument” for Christ’s deity or subject it to a logical syllogism, it is declared to be true and it is. That’s sort of how presuppositional approach apologetics. Surprisingly RC Sproul rejected presuppositionalism and used a more classical apologetic in his approach. He said that a presuppositional approach does not require an apologist to do his homework. Which is true! We don’t need to learn a whole lot of “stuff”, you just need to be able to identify a person’s presuppositions and work from there. It is much more complex than I wrote it but that’s basically it.
br.d
The problem with this – is that every time I started to apply LOGIC to Calvinism – you said we were going to hit a wall – because for you that would be subjecting LOGIC to scripture.
roland
Hopefully I can clear this up. This is the biggest challenge with online discussions: the hearer cannot hear the speaker’s vocal inflections, see the speaker’s facial expression, body language, etc. This challenge is inherent in online discussions.
br.d
Roland – the fact is – the underlying inference of scrutinizing scripture’s compliance to LOGIC – is the inference that scripture is not LOGICAL. The only person who would infer such a thing is an Atheist. I think you should be able to tell I’m not an Atheist.
Roland
I have no problem with you applying logic to Calvinism.
br.d
If that is TRUE – then you won’t be telling me we are bumping up against a wall!
But if I attempt to scrutinize Calvinism or an aspect of it with LOGIC and you tell me we are bumping up against a wall – then I’ll know it actually wasn’t TRUE. :-]
br.d
scripture’s compliance to LOGIC
roland
This is where we disagree. I don’t believe Scripture is in compliance with logic. That would mean that logic is above Scripture. Which I reject as I believe God is transcendental. He transcends concepts such as logic. Scripture is God-breathed, Jesus is the logos, the Word. Logic must comply to the truth as Jesus and God’s Word declare and not the other way around.
When you test something by something else, you are subjecting on thing to another. If I test Scripture by logic, I am subject the Scripture to logic. I would be making logic the standard of truth.
roland
This is where we disagree. I don’t believe Scripture is in compliance with logic.
br.d
Where you ever got the idea that I was trying to hold scripture in compliance to LOGIC is a mystery to me!
But lets see if we bump up against that wall again when I attempt to scrutinize Calvinism with LOGIC. :-]
br.d
Let me ask you a question
The Jehovah’s Witness representation of their doctrine – is that their doctrine is TRUE.
In that regard – is your representation of their doctrine similar, equal to, or close to theirs?
roland
NAY, it is not similar to their representation.
br.d
Let me ask you a question
The Jehovah’s Witness representation of their doctrine – is that their doctrine is TRUE.
In that regard – is your representation of their doctrine similar, equal to, or close to theirs?
roland
NAY, it is not similar to their representation.
br.d
And as an example – you would say – the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine is NOT TRUE
Correct?
br.d
And as an example – you would say – the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine is NOT TRUE
Correct?
roland
Yes, the JW’s doctrine is not true.
br.d
And as an example – you would say – the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine is NOT TRUE
Correct?
roland
Yes, the JW’s doctrine is not true.
br.d
Ok – here one of your arguments to me regarding Calvinism being misrepresented
So now we can use one of your arguments to me in which you assert I misrepresent Calvinism.
You asked me
“What prominent Calvinist says that the majority of the human race are designed/created for eternal torment in the lake of fire”?
Your question here poses the argument – that if no prominent Calvinist says my statement – then my statement misrepresents Calvinism.
So lets use that your argument to your representation of Jehovah’s Witness
Here is your argument back to you:
What prominent Jehovah’s Witness will say that the Jehovah’S Witness doctrine is NOT TRUE?
Since no prominent Jehovah’s Witness says your statement – then your statement misrepresents the Jehovah’s Witness
That is according to your argument
However, I say that your argument is fallacious.
I say that your claim that Jehovah’s Witness doctrine is NOT TRUE – is not a misrepresentation of their doctrine
br.d
So lets use that your argument to your representation of Jehovah’s Witness
roland
What did you just prove? Nothing. You put tother a syllogism without any regard to the veracity of the premises. All you did was turn my argument around and use it to prove your point. It’s not the same as me saying what you say about Calvinism.
br.d
Your question here poses the argument – that if no prominent Calvinist says my statement – then my statement misrepresents Calvinism.
roland
Again, I am responding to YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT CALVINISM TEACHES. You say CALVINISM TEACHES XXX. I ask you WHAT PROMINENT CALVINISTS TEACHING XXX. You cannot find a quote, you never will, and therefore, you are misrepresenting what we believe.
If a non-Christian says, “Christians teach that there is one God in three persons, therefore, since God is three persons, they worship three Gods.”
What you say that is a misrepresentation of Christianity? Or is it alone a misrepresentation if it doesn’t violate a logical norm?
roland
What did you just prove? Nothing. You put tother a syllogism without any regard to the veracity of the premises. All you did was turn my argument around and use it to prove your point.
br.d
BINGO!
So by applying your argument to your representation of Jehovah’s Witness – you should be able to see that your argument is fallacious.
Roland
It’s not the same as me saying what you say about Calvinism.
br.d
This statement reveals more immaturity on your part concerning LOGIC
I used a standard test – used in LOGIC – to validate your argument.
I took the FORM of your argument – and applied it to a different case – to see how it would work
LOGIC tells us – if your argument is valid in one case – then it is valid in any case.
And under that test – it became obvious the argument is fallacious
roland
Again, I am responding to YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT CALVINISM TEACHES. You say CALVINISM TEACHES XXX. I ask you WHAT PROMINENT CALVINISTS TEACHING XXX. You cannot find a quote, you never will, and therefore, you are misrepresenting what we believe.
br.d
Correct!
LOGIC tells us – If your argument is valid for your belief system – then it is also valid for any belief system
When we applied it to the belief system of the JWs – it became obvious that it was fallacious
This is a common test in LOGIC to validate whether an argument is fallacious or not
Your argument failed.
Roland
If a non-Christian says, “Christians teach that there is one God in three persons, therefore, since God is three persons, they worship three Gods.”
br.d
That argument fails – simply because it commits the fallacy of non-sequitur
A VALID logical argument concerning that would be:
“Christians teach that there is one God in three persons – therefore they worship one God in three persons”
If you want to provide an example of Dr. Flowers misrepresenting Calvinism – you need to make sure that the FORM of Dr. Flowers argument is VALID. If the FORM is LOGICALLY valid – and the CONTENT is false – then you can have a misrepresentation.
If the FORM of the statement that Dr. Flowers makes is LOGICALLY valid – and the conclusion LOGICALLY follows – then that statement cannot be misrepresentation of the TRUTH.
In such case – it would be considered a TRUTH-STATEMENT about Calvinism – which the Calvinist is not willing to make.
Just because Dr. Flowers is willing to tell a TRUTH that the Calvinist is not willing to tell – does equate to misrepresentation.
It simply shows Dr. Flowers is willing to tell a certain TRUTH about Calvinism – that the Calvinist is not willing to reveal.
br.d
Just because Dr. Flowers is willing to tell a TRUTH that the Calvinist is not willing to tell – does equate to misrepresentation.
It simply shows Dr. Flowers is willing to tell a certain TRUTH about Calvinism – that the Calvinist is not willing to reveal.
roland
No, what Dr. Flowers is doing is making a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation
the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something.
Dr. Flowers is giving a false or misleading account of Calvinism. He is saying things that we do not believe or teach. It is so simple to see but since it is not LOGIC, you don’t want to believe it. It is common sense but since you are on Dr. Flowers side, you won’t admit to it. That’s why you resort to logic to defend Dr. Flowers misrepresentation of Calvinism.
Calvinists see it because we know what we teach and believe. And you accuse me of playing semantical games.
roland
No, what Dr. Flowers is doing is making a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation
br.d
Well – I’ve take the time to step you through a LOGICAL test – to show you that one of your arguments breaks down.
You’ve responded – by simply making another claim.
A claim – is nothing more than a claim – until it can be LOGICALLY shown to be TRUE.
You can make another argument if you want to – and we can put that argument to the test.
But if your next argument is no better than the last one – its also going to fail.
At minimum – I think this has been a good exercise for you.
br.d
At minimum – I think this has been a good exercise for you.
roland
It has been but just because LOGIC disproves my argument doesn’t make my claim that Dr Flowers misrepresent Calvinists false. What you have shown is that my claim does not meet a logical test. I agree it doesn’t. Therefore, my claim is fallacious, and therefore false.
In sum, according to you and I would presume all logicians, my claim is false, Dr. Flowers does not misrepresent Calvinism and my petition that a prominent Calvinists quote be given is illogical or irrational. You proved that to me with the JWs argument. However, since I am not convinced that my petition is irrational, it is the logical and rational conclusion that I am immature in logic.
Roland
In sum, according to you and I would presume all logicians, my claim is false,
br.d
That argument at least.
And as I said – I’m will to hear a different argument – but we will put that one to the test also.
Roland
Dr. Flowers does not misrepresent Calvinism and my petition that a prominent Calvinists quote be given is illogical or irrational.
br.d
Its not clear what you mean by “prominent Calvinists quote be given is illogical or irrational”
Roland
You proved that to me with the JWs argument. However, since I am not convinced that my petition is irrational, it is the logical and rational conclusion that I am immature in logic.
br.d
LOGIC is a practice and a discipline.
It takes time to learn.
But as you can see – its a powerful tool for discerning.
Here is something you might find interesting
In the discipline of syllogisms there are a total of 256 possible syllogisms that can be made.
And out of that number – all but 24 of them are logically fallacious.
This shows us how high the probability of our thinking can be fallacious.
With odds like that – It almost makes a person wonder how we humans get much of anything right!
The difference between you and I – is simply that I’ve been focused on it for a while. :-]
br.d
The difference between you and I – is simply that I’ve been focused on it for a while. :-]
roland
Yes, I concede, you are far more apt as using logic than I am. I was focused not so much on logic but on philosophy for about two years. I’ve since abandoned it in the sense that I don’t it up as the ultimate authority in my life.
br.d
That is according to your argument
However, I say that your argument is fallacious.
I say that your claim that Jehovah’s Witness doctrine is NOT TRUE – is not a misrepresentation of their doctrine
roland
So, then according to your argument JWs doctrine is NOT TRUE but TRUE because of my fallacious argument. Got it! So, then it is illogical to ask that a prominent representative of any belief system be given in order to correct a misrepresentation is fallacious, therefore, the misrepresentation is true. Got it! It all makes cents, what was I thinking?
roland
So, then according to your argument JWs doctrine is NOT TRUE but TRUE because of my fallacious argument.
br.d
Roland – it can’t be both NOT TRUE and TRUE – that is a contradiction.
What the test shows – is that your argument for misrepresentation commits a logical fallacy.
The test we’ve used – does nothing to show whether JW’s doctrine is TRUE or FALSE
The test is focused solely on the issue of representation
Roland
Got it! So, then it is illogical to ask that a prominent representative of any belief system be given in order to correct a misrepresentation
br.d
Take that question and again apply to the JWs.
Do you automatically say YES to every representation a JW makes concerning JW doctrine just because a prominent JW makes it?
Somehow I don’t think so.
Again – if your argument works for your belief system – then it works for every belief system.
And I’m hoping – by stepping you through that LOGICAL test – you can see that It doesn’t
br.d
This just tells you can’t tell the difference between James White’s representation of the Non-Calvinist – and James White’s representation of the Calvinist. When James White was equating belief with merits – he was not representing that as the Calvinist perspective – but as the non-Calvinist persepective.
roland
I suggest you watch the video. Because James White is EXCLUDING the argument that BELIEF IS MERITORIOUS. HE’S EXCLUDING IT. HE’S NOT MAKING IT. HE SAYS SO IN THE VIDEO.
Dr. Flowers then says that James White is saying BELIEF IS MERITORIOUS.
Dr Flowers is saying White is saying something that White is explicitly NOT SAYING. I don’t know how much clearer to misrepresenting a person can get? I would also add that Mike Winger is saying the exact same thing as Dr. Flowers. They’re both saying that James White said BELIEF IS MERITORIOUS when James White said NO! I don’t get how that is not clear.
roland
James White is EXCLUDING the argument that BELIEF IS MERITORIOUS. HE’S EXCLUDING IT. HE’S NOT MAKING IT. HE SAYS SO IN THE VIDEO.
br.d
He is excluding it as what LOGICALLY follows for Calvinism – or what LOGICALLY follows from non-Calvinism?
Roland
Dr. Flowers then says that James White is saying BELIEF IS MERITORIOUS.
br.d
As a representation of what LOGICALLY follows in Calvinism – or as a representation of what LOGICALLY follows in Non-Calvinism?
Roland
Dr Flowers is saying White is saying something that White is explicitly NOT SAYING.
br.d
You continue to make the same error over and over.
You fail to distinguish the difference between what is stated “Inferentially” from what is said “Explicitly”
Do you need me to help you to understand that?
br.d
He is excluding it as what LOGICALLY follows for Calvinism – or what LOGICALLY follows from non-Calvinism?
roland
Neither. James White is not bringing up the argument that belief is meritorious, he’s excluding it from the discussion. But Dr. Flowers insists that White is making the argument. Here’s a brief outline of the video segment I’m referring to:
The issue White is addressing is that non-Calvinists (Mike Winger) believe the choice to repent or believe is an AUTONOMOUS ACT because non-Calvinists do not believe in effectual grace. NO EFFECTUAL GRACE = AUTONOMOUS ACT TO BELIEVE.
Dr. Flowers does not address White’s claim of believing being an AUTONOMOUS ACT. Dr. Flowers brings up other things that he thinks are addressing the claim but he doesn’t. However, Dr. Flowers keeps insisting that this is White’s argument. I can understand why Dr. Flowers brings this up because there are Calvinists who accuse non-Calvinists of believing that an AUTONOMOUS ACT of believing in Christ is works. I don’t believe that non-Calvinists are saying this or believe this. I accept Dr. Flowers’s argument that provisionists believe salvation is by grace. But provisionists don’t believe in irresistible or effectual grace, Calvinists do, that’s the disagreement.
White is saying non-Calvinists must believe faith (believing) is an AUTONOMOUS ACT because they deny effectual or irresistible grace. So, White does not make the argument about faith being a work, he does not infer it, etc. but Dr. Flowers kept insisting that White is making the argument.
I’ll get the video and see if I can decipher how you are interpreting the conversation
I’ll get back to you
Roland
MAY 7, 2021 AT 11:57 AM
At another point in the video Dr. Flowers says that James White is equating belief with merits.
br.d
Ok I have the exact transcript for that section of the video
Minute 3:26
James White – talking about Mike Winger
-quote
He’s [Mike Winger] assuming that works are meritorious, and are earning something……
Dr. Flowers – responding to James White
-quote
“Actually Mike wasn’t saying he believes that works are meritorious, or that faith is meritorious.
What he [Mike] is saying, is that Calvinists often accuse us of believing that because faith is our response to God, our free response, that it is meriting something. And that is the accusation brought against us by many Calvinists.
Dr. Flower’s then address James White directly
-quote
You may not make that mistake Dr. White, but it is common for Calvinists to accuse us of believing that we are earning or meriting our own salvation……
So Roland
I have no idea how you got that messed up the way you did.
But Dr. Flowers is not accusing James White of holding to faith as meritorious – i.e. equating belief as merits.
So it was as I assumed it would be.
br.dSo Roland
I have no idea how you got that messed up the way you did.
But Dr. Flowers is not accusing James White of holding to faith as meritorious – i.e. equating belief as merits.
So it was as I assumed it would be.
roland
Go on to the video at 15:45 and 40:05, James White is saying what I said he said. It is in there, I have it in my notes. My notes start at the 5:40 mark.
On my system – from minute 15:45 to 15:52 James white is talking
-quote
“Not an act that merits, but it is an autonomous act, that could, if not undertaken, make everything else that god has done fail.”
During this time period Dr. Flowers is not speaking.
I what I understand James White as saying – is that on Calvinism the “act” is not man’s “act” but a divine “act” which is autonomous.
On my system – Mike Winger is speaking at minute 40:04 to 40:16
-quote
“It is no work that I do. It is just that I believe. The assumption that is underlying what he is saying is that my belief itself, my choice to trust in Christ, that itself is a work that I do”
If I understand Mike Winger here – he appears to be wanting to correct a false accusation he believes faith is meritorious.
Dr. Flowers is not speaking during that window of time either.
br.d
I what I understand James White as saying – is that on Calvinism the “act” is not man’s “act” but a divine “act” which is autonomous.
roland
I don’t think White is addressing this at all. He ask, after Winger says that White is accusing him of equating belief with works, White asks, “Did you notice that I did not use that term (I think he’s referring to meritorious)?” Then Dr. Flowers says” Just because you didn’t doesn’t meant it isn’t used quite regularly.” Dr. Flowers counties “I have heard you (referring to White) imply that we are earning or meriting salvation by faith.”
Regarding autonomous act, White is arguing that this is the non-Calvinist view, it is a libertarian freewill act or as White put it, which Dr. Flowers rejected, an autonomous (having the freedom to act independently).
I think we are hearing two different arguments. I don’t hear White making an assumption of Winger’s beliefs that faith is meritorious.
roland
Dr. Flowers counters “I have heard you (referring to White) imply that we are earning or meriting salvation by faith.”
br.d
And that would be exemplified at Minute 3:26
Where James White is talking about Mike Winger
-quote
He’s [Mike Winger] assuming that works are meritorious, and are earning something……
Roland
Regarding autonomous act, White is arguing that this is the non-Calvinist view
br.d
And did you know that that argument commits the fallacy of equivocation?
There are two SENSES in which the term “autonomous” can be applied.
1) Metaphysical autonomy
2) Functional autonomy
Which one is James white referring to?
Does he qualify this anywhere?
Metaphysical autonomy is totally irrational
It would mean that man creates himself.
Functional autonomy infers that man has functionality that is independent of divine control.
Roland
, it is a libertarian freewill act or as White put it, which Dr. Flowers rejected, an autonomous (having the freedom to act independently).
br.e
At what point in the video are you hearing this?
its apparent that the minutes in my system may be a little off from yours.
Roland
I think we are hearing two different arguments. I don’t hear White making an assumption of Winger’s beliefs that faith is meritorious.
br.d
The video is titled ” Saved by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE?”
The very first clip that Dr. Flowers plays of White – is White saying this
-quote
He’s [Mike Winger] assuming that works are meritorious, and are earning something……
br.d
Which one is James white referring to?
Does he qualify this anywhere?
roland
No he doesn’t but I would assume functional autonomy.
br.e
At what point in the video are you hearing this?
its apparent that the minutes in my system may be a little off from yours.
roland
According to my notes it starts at 40:05. I didn’t note how long this portion lasted but I believe it was about 90 seconds but I could be wrong.
br.d
The video is titled ” Saved by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE?”
The very first clip that Dr. Flowers plays of White – is White saying this
-quote
He’s [Mike Winger] assuming that works are meritorious, and are earning something……
roland
But later on in the video White is excluding this argument that belief equals merit. I hear White focusing on the issue of whether the choice to believe or repent is an autonomous (that is an independent) act or is it by effectual or irresistible grace. That’s what I understand White saying. Maybe it is because I move and live within the Calvinists echo chamber.
br.d
Which one is James white referring to?
Does he qualify this anywhere?
roland
No he doesn’t but I would assume functional autonomy.
br.d
Ok – lets examine that.
What you are saying is – in Calvinism – man’s functionality is totally dependent upon divine control – right?
br.d
Ok – lets examine that.
What you are saying is – in Calvinism – man’s functionality is totally dependent upon divine control – right?
Roland
Yes, as Paul preached in Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
And as Jesus taught His disciples in John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
So, yes in Calvinism, man’s functionality is totally dependent upon divine control. We draw this doctrine from Scripture.
Roland
So, yes in Calvinism, man’s functionality is totally dependent upon divine control.
br.d
That is consistent with Theological Determinism – and a compatibilist view of freedom
Is it right for me to assume you reject the existence of Libertarian Freedom as available to humans – and accept the existence of compatibilist freedom?
br.d
That is consistent with Theological Determinism – and a compatibilist view of freedom
Is it right for me to assume you reject the existence of Libertarian Freedom as available to humans – and accept the existence of compatibilist freedom?
roland
Yes, I reject libertarian freewill unless the exception that humans will act freely according to their sinful nature is considered. Yes, I believe compatibilist freedom is the most biblical concept we have available to us today.
roland
Yes, I reject libertarian freewill unless the exception that humans will act freely according to their sinful nature is considered.
br.d
Well – acting according to one’s nature can be applicable to both Libertarian or Compatibilist freedom.
Pretty much all Calvinist scholars today acknowledge – if Theological Determinism is TRUE – then Libertarian Freedom does not exist for humans in any form.
Pauls Helm’s for example will say that the Westminster Confession affirms Determinism/Compatibilism
And Libertarian and Compatibilist freedom mutually exclude one another.
And thus for Helm’s Libertarian Freedom is ruled out as non-existent for humans.
br.d
Pauls Helm’s for example will say that the Westminster Confession affirms Determinism/Compatibilism
And Libertarian and Compatibilist freedom mutually exclude one another.
And thus for Helm’s Libertarian Freedom is ruled out as non-existent for humans.
roland
I’m not familiar with Paul Helm as I’ve never read any of his works. I can agree with him that Libertarian and Compatibilist freedom exclude one another.
My only issue with Helm’s ruling out Libertarian freedom is if he is willing to make an exception that man’s fallen nature be included in Libertarian freedom. If not, then I can still agree with him. The issue of human nature is more of a nuance.
Roland
My only issue with Helm’s ruling out Libertarian freedom is if he is willing to make an exception that man’s fallen nature be included in Libertarian freedom. If not, then I can still agree with him. The issue of human nature is more of a nuance.
br.d
This is interesting!
Are you saying that man has Libertarian freedom to determine his nature – which would mean that his nature is not determined at the foundation of the world?
br.d
This is interesting!
Are you saying that man has Libertarian freedom to determine his nature – which would mean that his nature is not determined at the foundation of the world?
Roland
No, I must have misstated what I mean. I mean that man’s nature determines his “libertarian freedom.” We can only act, choose, decide, etc. ACCORDING to our fallen nature. That’s what I mean.
br.d
Are you saying that man has Libertarian freedom to determine his nature – which would mean that his nature is not determined at the foundation of the world?
Roland
No, I must have misstated what I mean. I mean that man’s nature determines his “libertarian freedom.” We can only act, choose, decide, etc. ACCORDING to our fallen nature. That’s what I mean.
br.d
Oh!
Well – if man’s nature is 100% determined at the foundation of the world – and man’s freedom is compatible with what is determined – then we have Compatibilist freedom.
And we can’t have both at the same time
Because what ever is Libertarian – entails man as the DETERMINATIVE determiner.
And if man is the DETERMINATIVE determiner – then that rules out a THEOS as the DETERMINATIVE determiner.
And if that is the case – we no longer have a THEOS who determines 100% of everything.
So it seems LOGICAL to me – to say that on Calvinism – man’s nature is determined at the foundation of the world.
And man’s functionality – as you have said – is Non-Autonomous – which means it is totally dependent upon what is determined.
And since Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilist Freedom mutually exclude each other – we can only have one or the other.
br.d
What you are saying is – in Calvinism – man’s functionality is totally dependent upon divine control – right?
roland
Yes. Exodus 3:19-20
19 But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand. 20 So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in its midst; and after that he will let you go.
Here, pharaoh could not function without God, at least with regards with letting Israel go.
Deuteronomy 32:39
39 ‘Now see that I, even I, am He,
And there is no God besides Me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand
Again, God’s control is seen in life and death, health and sickness, and none can deliver from His hand.
Isaiah 43:13
When I act, who can reverse it?
No one can reverse God’s actions.
br.d
What you are saying is – in Calvinism – man’s functionality is totally dependent upon divine control – right?
roland
Yes……..
br.d
Ok then – we should be able to unpackage compatibilist freedom
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Compatibilism as follows:
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
So in Calvinism – we have Theological Determinism.
This is stated as “Whatsoever comes to pass – does so by infallible decree – at the foundation of the world”
Therefore – on that view – the freedom of all created things – must be compatible with what is determined.
br.d
Therefore – on that view – the freedom of all created things – must be compatible with what is determined.
roland
Yes. Bruce Ware puts it this way in his book God’s Greater Glory: “While never minimizing either the genuineness of human choosing nor the moral responsibility attached to human choice, Scripture presents God as having ultimate and exacting control over just what happens.”
John Frame in his book The Doctrine of God adds this:
“To say that God’s controlling power is efficacious is simply to say that it always accomplishes its purpose. God never fails to acomplish what he sets out to do. Creatures may oppose him, to be sure, but they cannot prevail.”
Yes, God is in control, yet humans are free.
br.d
Therefore – on that view – the freedom of all created things – must be compatible with what is determined.
roland
Yes……
br.d
Ok – so we have a world in which Determinism is the rule – with freedom that must be compatible with what is determined.
And we then have the LOGICAL contra-positive:
Freedom that is NOT compatible with what is determined – does not exist.
br.d
And we then have the LOGICAL contra-positive:
Freedom that is NOT compatible with what is determined – does not exist.
roland
Here is where we are going to hit the wall I often bring up in our discussions. I’m going to guess that logic is your ultimate authority? If so, then we are at that wall.
I see what you are saying about the contra-positive but I cannot make a logical argument against this. I am going to appeal to Scripture that shows that God’s control is compatible with human decisions or choices.
Let me explain to you what I am interpreting your argument as being. I interpret your appeal to logic as a means by which I will be shown some sort of logical fallacy. I cannot go there as I don’t know how. I appeal to Scripture in my defense. So, my argument will be what Scripture teaches us but your argument will be what logic shows us.
br.d
And we then have the LOGICAL contra-positive:
Freedom that is NOT compatible with what is determined – does not exist.
roland
Here is where we are going to hit the wall I often bring up in our discussions. I’m going to guess that logic is your ultimate authority? If so, then we are at that wall.
br.d
Well – I would suggest you think this through.
It is certainly not be my position that scripture is ILLOGICAL
But a human INTERPRETATION of scripture can resolve to being fallacious
For example – there are people who believe the scripture teaches the earth is flat.
You presented a few scriptures – which are INTERPRETED as affirming compatibilist freedom.
And you did say that you have no problem using LOGIC to analyze Calvinism – or a Calvinist INTERPRETATION.
So if we are to use LOGIC – then we would be using it to test an INTERPRETATION.
We wouldn’t be using it to test scripture.
Unless it is your position that the Calvinist’s INTERPRETATION is canon – and thus equal to scripture?
br.d
Well – I would suggest you think this through.
It is certainly not be my position that scripture is ILLOGICAL
But a human INTERPRETATION of scripture can resolve to being fallacious
For example – there are people who believe the scripture teaches the earth is flat.
roland
I’m willing to think this through. I’ve been enjoying our discussion as we have managed to refrain from insults and I’m willing to listen to you. Good, I agree with you that scripture is ILLOGICAL. Yes, a human INTERPRETATION of Scripture can be fallacious. I’ve never read or heard the argument that Scriptures teaches the earth is flat. New to me.
br.d
You presented a few scriptures – which are INTERPRETED as affirming compatibilist freedom.
And you did say that you have no problem using LOGIC to analyze Calvinism – or a Calvinist INTERPRETATION.
roland
Yes, I agree with your statement but we’re getting close to that wall.
br.d
So if we are to use LOGIC – then we would be using it to test an INTERPRETATION.
We wouldn’t be using it to test scripture
roland
Yes, again I agree with what you are saying. We’re close to that wall. I believe the Calvinist, at this point I prefer a Reformed interpretation, of Scripture is closer to Scripture than other types of interpretations. As you use logic to analyze the Reformed interpretation of Scripture, I’m going to appeal more to Scripture than logic.
br.d
Unless it is your position that the Calvinist’s INTERPRETATION is canon – and thus equal to scripture?
roland
How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not my position that “the Calvinist’s INTERPRETATION is canon – and thus equal to scripture?
John Calvin was a man so there are issues with his interpretation of Scripture. He laid a foundation from which many men have built upon and at the same time challenged. The Reformed tradition has built upon that foundation through the Puritans, the Dutch Reformed, the American puritans, etc. So, I don’t hold Calvin to that highest regard of Scripture. This is my last one for the night. I might have time tomorrow but it will definitely be evening. Thanks for the discourse.
roland
As you use logic to analyze the Reformed interpretation of Scripture, I’m going to appeal more to Scripture than logic.
br.d
Ok – perhaps we could agree to proceed in a certain manner?
I can present what I understand as what is LOGICAL concerning this subject.
And I’m happy for you to analyze my LOGIC – to see if you can find anything that is fallacious with it.
And then if you don’t see anything fallacious with it – and you think that it infers scripture is ILLOGICAL – you an tell me.
How does that sound?
br.d
You continue to make the same error over and over.
You fail to distinguish the difference between what is stated “Inferentially” from what is said “Explicitly”
Do you need me to help you to understand that?
roland
I know the difference. White was not inferring or explicitly making the argument that FAITH IS MERITORIOUS but Dr. Flowers insisted he was. I don’t need there are plenty of online dictionaries!
Roland
I know the difference. White was not inferring or explicitly making the argument that FAITH IS MERITORIOUS but Dr. Flowers insisted he was. I don’t need there are plenty of online dictionaries!
br.d
You do know that Calvinists will typically claim that a non-Calvinist is boasting – when a non-Calvinist says he believed – without it being irresistible.
And the reasoning behind that Calvinist claim – is that it LOGICALLY follows – boasting equates to a meritorious work.
Therefore the Calvinist will claim that non-Calvinists make faith into a meritorious work.
I have a suspicion Dr. Flowers may be referring to that claim – but I’ll watch the video.
br.d
Roland – I might be able to help you – in your understanding of LOGIC.
Firstly- in LOGIC – to basic distinctions exist for statements.
1) FORM
2) CONTENT
The CONTENT of a statement may be fallacious – which will make that statement fallacious
The FORM of a statement may also be fallacious – which will make that statement fallacious
This is where we get the standard list of FORMAL fallacies.
These are fallacies of FORM
So let’s take your argument concerning Dr. Flowers – and lets analyze its FORM
We will call Dr. Flowers: “Person_A”
We will call Calvinism: “Person_B”
Lets call your argument the “Misrepresentation” argument
Now let me craft a statement which provides an approximation of your argument:
When Person_A represents Person_B using a representation that is not equal to, similar to, or close enough to, Person_B’s representation of Person_B, then Person_A is misrepresenting Person_B.
Does my approximation statement work for you?
If not – can you please restate it so that it does.
There have been “successful” Calvinist preachers as well as “successful” non-Calvinist preacher (The Wesley brothers, Billy Graham, and AW Tozer did pretty well).
It silly to talk about this since God allows many people a part in the kingdom work like Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was not only successful as s preacher but as a multiple slave owner …and very successful at arguing that slavery should remain legal. Bravo.
So “success” as we know it is not a barometer.
Heather writes, “Anyone can be successful if they hide/disguise the parts of their theology that will make people reject it.”
Jesus commanded, “Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you.” So, the disciples went out planting and watering confident that God, who gives the increase, would do just that. There are always people who will reject the preaching of the gospel no matter what a preacher preaches or what he leaves out – It is still God who uses that preaching to save His elect no matter how many reject the gospel or why they reject it.
rhutchinI
it is still God who uses that preaching to save His elect no matter how many reject the gospel or why they reject it.
br.d
And NOT telling the TRUTH is all part of the TRUE gospel :-]
Roland: “I would like to see a quote from a prominent Calvinist who identifies the Gospel as you claim we do.”
Have you never heard of Calvinism’s very own TULIP? It’s right there in the L. Limited Atonement. Calvi-Jesus didn’t die for most people, therefore they were created for hell. Or would Calvinists say the non-elect were created for heaven? Because those are the only two options if God created us for a certain destination. (And I don’t want any of that Calvinist “God just passed over them” stuff. It’s just a softer, deceptive way of saying “God created them knowing that their only possible destination was hell, with no chance of going to heaven.”)
And you can deny that it’s called the “gospel of Calvinism” if you want to. But it doesn’t change anything. I have found that Calvinists regularly deny certain things (“We don’t SAY that,” they claim), while slipping those same beliefs in farther down the line somewhere in a disguised way. It’s all part of how Calvinism operates. (They’re right that they don’t SAY it. They HIDE it.)
As Br.d. rightly points out: “They had to EVADE telling THE WHOLE TRUTH (according to Calvinism) in order be successful.”
After being hired at our church, it took my strong, dogmatic Calvinist pastor several years to finally mention TULIP and the word “Calvinism.” He carefully, gently laid the Calvinist groundwork over years, only revealing bits and pieces of his Calvinist theology at a time, like a slow dribble. Why? Why can’t he just come right out and share TULIP in all its horrible “glory” at the very beginning if it’s so great and biblical? Why are Calvinists so afraid that the way they present the Calvinist gospel will scare people off, and so they have to be careful how they word things? Are they really afraid they can scare the elect off somehow? How contradictory!
EK writes, “The first option is this: Shouldn’t a consistent Calvinist direct his frustrations toward God rather than the world?”
The Calvinist does; Calvinists tend to be like Habakkuk. Yet, Calvinists can get frustrated with people in the church. Before the last election, a man in my Bible study class said that Joe Biden was a man of character. So, this man of character would do everything he could to kill as many black babies as possible while he was in control of the government, and that is what he is doing. Yet, many church people justify abortion by saying that they favor helping the poor – just not the babies. There is a lot to get frustrated about with the church.
rhutchin
Calvinists can get frustrated with people in the church.
br.d
I might get frustrated with a computer program – but at the same time I’m cognizant that computers have COMPATIBILISTIC freedom.
They are “Free” to be/do what the program determines because that “Freedom” is COMPATIBLE with what the program determines.
But they are NOT “Free” to be/do otherwise – because that “Freedom” is not COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Interesting to ponder why the Calvinist treats what he believes to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE!
Oh that’s right – Calvin instructs the Calvinist to go about his office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part.
How could I forget that! :-]
Eric,
Thanks for that post.
We go out on the sidewalk a couple times a week to offer abortion-bound women a choice. A choice, right?
On the same sidewalk (sometimes) are beard-wearing, tat-branding, YRRs shouting out “truths of the Gospel”. In between their outcries directed at desperate women, they will turn to us and complain at how bad the country is, and how we need to do better to fight the wickedness.
I have not (yet) chosen those moments to ask them how that works deterministically for them to insist that God decreed everything and yet act as if man has a choice in the matter.
Filemon,
I applaud you making a try at this, coming over from your native Portuguese. As Heather said, everything you mentioned has been addressed MANY times in these posts.
It makes no sense to me to take a vague “end from the beginning” or “my purposes will stand” and retrofit them into Augustine’s (or Plato’s) deterministic philosophy. Those (cherry-picked) verses only say what you describe because you make them mean that.
How can you explain John 17:12 where Jesus says that Judas was doomed to destruction to fulfill the Scripture, with Arminian logic he shouldn’t have been condemned, because he couldn’t have done otherwise. Please explain why God was not unjust when He chose Israel among all the other nations for 4.000 years dooming billions of people to destruction and if He chooses one man to be saved He is unjust by the same logic or show me where this is explained in your blog.
Excuse me, but Heather has no knowledge to debate with anybody, and I advise him to begin reading Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Kierkegaard, Leibniz, and after those he can read Jonathan Edwards, by the way, satan was defeated by Jesus, he has no power anymore, if he is free like Heather wrote than Jesus failed in one of his duties. Everybody, even an illiterate person knows that faith comes from hearing the message, but nobody has the power to go to Jesus, unless he has God’s Grace, and faith doesn’t come from inside anyone it is a gift, we receive it from God, this is one of the reason the Gospel has to be preached and the Calvinists are the best doing this.
Filemon writes, “Jesus says that Judas was doomed to destruction to fulfill the Scripture, with Arminian logic he shouldn’t have been condemned, because he couldn’t have done otherwise.”
By God’s decree as a consequence of Adam’s sin, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and now faith is required to approach God and obtain righteousness, but no one is born with faith. This makes your statement true, “Everybody, even an illiterate person knows that faith comes from hearing the message, but nobody has the power to go to Jesus, unless he has God’s Grace, and faith doesn’t come from inside anyone it is a gift, we receive it from God, this is one of the reason(s) the Gospel has to be preached and the Calvinists are the best doing this.”
rhutchin
Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden
br.d
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions” (The Doctrine of Divine Decree)
And the divine decrees (which includes every impulse permitted to come to pass within Adam and Eve’s brain) come to pass INFALLIBLY and IRRESISTIBLY.
And that – as Paul Harvey would say – is the “Rest of the Story” :-]
Hello Filemon
The Non-Calvinist reading of that text does not assume Judas was programmed to robotically commit that sin.
Additionally – the word “doomed” is added into that text as part of some English translations.
The original Greek:
μοι καὶ ἐφύλαξα καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ
You have given Me. And I guarded [them] and none of them has perished if not the son of destruction that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
In our English society, the word “doomed” is generally used to mean FATED
And in such case Judas would have been powerless to resist fate – which would be the case in Calvinism.
But there is no need for the Non-Calvinist to read a concept into the text which isn’t there.
Filemon says: “Excuse me, but Heather has no knowledge to debate with anybody,”
Wow, and you came to that conclusion after exactly one exchange between us. You must be incredibly insightful! And I can tell that you’re a fair, respectful, polite person who sticks to the issues and who really wants to have intelligent conversations and thoughtful, friendly debates. And so, welcome to Sot 101. Your presence here will really enrich the comment sections. (But I, of course, won’t be responding to anything you write because I have no knowledge to debate anyone. Now if you’ll excuse me, my empty air-head is floating away like a helium balloon, and I have to go catch it.)
Filemon “Excuse me, but Heather has no knowledge to debate with anybody,”
br.d
This looks like an example of GNOSTICISM! :-]
Heather – please continue to fully engage with any comment you wish.
You are not to be treated in a disrespectful manner here!
We’ve had Calvinists play those games here historically.
But that behavior doesn’t fly these days
Your thoughts and comments are welcome and respected here.
br.d
Thank you, brdmod. I truly am not bothered at all by an ignorant, baseless criticism from one random person who doesn’t know me at all. And while I might not comment TO Filemon, I may comment ABOUT what he says. 🙂
(I’m taking a page from the Calvinist handbook: twist words or add other layers of meaning to get your way or to weasel out of any tight spot.)
Good!
I always appreciate your thoughtful posts! :-]
Filemon says: “… and I advise him to begin reading Luther, Calvin, Augustine, …”
And that right there’s the problem! Shouldn’t it be “I advise you to read the Bible alone”? Calvinists want you to think they are basing their theology on the Bible alone, on the plain teachings of Scripture. They want you to think they are teaching biblical doctrine, not Calvinist doctrine. But it always comes back to their favorite Calvinist theologians. That’s very telling!
Heather
Shouldn’t it be “I advise you to read the Bible alone”?
br.d
For a Calvinist – that would be putting the cart before the horse! :-]
The post is 100% to the point. There is a disconnect of cosmic proportions between exhaustive meticulous providence and how calvinists speak of people and events. There really isn’t a living room anywhere big enough to house that elephant.
Hello Alan and welcome
test
testing this page
It is articles just like this that I doubt Leighton was ever a Calvinist who understood what the Bible says about God’s nature, His interaction with creation, anthropology, soteriology, HIs providence, His decree, His holiness, etc. I’ve really come to believe that Leighton is just spiritually gaslighting Calvinists. I think Leighton gets a kick out of aggravating Calvinists with his overt misrepresentations of Calvinistic doctrine and practice. This is why I should avoid this website but Leighton’s one string banjo sure has one high note that keeps ringing in my ear!
Roland…You’ll need more specific examples than just a general proclamation like that or you could be accused of “gaslighting”! How about a direct quote or two from Leighton contrasted against as direct quote or two of the authoritative Calvinist source you think best represents Calvinism. Ok?
Brian, really this whole article is a complete misrepresentation of Calvinist doctrine and practice. Here’s a quote from the article that I believe sums up Leighton’s supposed consistent Calvinist reaction to the state of the world:
“But, to be honest, I cannot help wonder how my Calvinistic brother’s expressions of frustration toward the state of the world are warranted. Given their belief that “God has sovereignly and unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass for the praise of His own glory,” (WCF III.1)”
Leighton’s implication is that Calvinists should just be at peace with the state of the world. Leighton should know that as Calvinists God’s Word is “the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule” for us. Does God’s Word command us to accept things as they are such as abortion? Leighton is at least implying, if not directly, stating that because we believe God “works all things according to the counsel of His own will,” we should accept evils such as abortion.
Basically Leighton is saying that Calvinist should just accept the state of the world because God decreed it and who are we (Calvinists in this case) to talk back to God. Leighton should know better, especially as a former Calvinists.
Roland,
Leighton’s implication is that Calvinists should just be at peace with the state of the world.
br.d
Not quite
The question is – why isn’t the Calvinist at peace with that which his god infallibly decrees come to pass – since on Calvinism – everything that is infallibly decreed is a perfect manifestation of the divine will and is specifically designed to glorify himself?
R. C Sproul answers that question for you
-quote
God ordains evil – and god only ordains that which is good.
And did you not see the quote in the article by Calvinist – Darrel B. Harrison?
-quote
When as a Christian you are convinced of the sovereignty of god in that EVERYTHING that occurs in the world .both good and ILL – you not only are at peace with it – but also the outcome.
That quote is a quote from a Calvinist – obviously not a misrepresentation!
Roland
Does God’s Word command us to accept things as they are such as abortion?
Roland – consider the possibility that what the article is pointing to is a disconnect between the underlying core foundation of Universal Causal Divine Determinism (which sets Calvinism apart and makes it unique) and what you read in scripture.
brdmod wrote:
Roland – consider the possibility that what the article is pointing to is a disconnect between the underlying core foundation of Universal Causal Divine Determinism (which sets Calvinism apart and makes it unique) and what you read in scripture
No, there is no disconnect from what Calvinists teach and practice and what I read in Scripture. Is there a sense that as a Christian I should be content? Yes, as Paul learned in Philippians 4:11-13, as well as Job 2:10. I would add that being content (at peace) in all things does not mean that I am to be indifferent to the sins in the world. Leighton is saying that a consistent Calvinist should be at peace because God ordains all things and Calvinists should be frustrated at God. Which we are not. As a Calvinists I seek God for help in receiving the good and the adversity but this does not mean I am to be indifferent to the state of the world. That’s not a biblical perspective and it’s not a Calvinistic perspective.
Roland
No, there is no disconnect from what Calvinists teach and practice and what I read in Scripture.
br.d
So then for you – these are what you are not at peace with
1) The WORKS of Calvin’s god’s hand and mind
2) The direct expression of his will
3) The events he brings to pass specifically to manifest his glory
Roland
Being content (at peace) in all things does not mean that I am to be indifferent to the sins in the world.
br.d
Which means you don’t attribute the sins of the world to what the doctrine attributes them to:
1) The WORKS of Calvin’s god’s hand and mind
2) The direct expression of his will
3) The events he brings to pass specifically to manifest his glory
Or perhaps you are following a DOUBLE-MINDED doctrine?
Roland
As a Calvinists I seek God for help in receiving the good
br.d
But remember – in Calvinism – “Evil” is “good”
R.C. Sproul
-quote
God ordains evil – and everything god ordains is good
Jon Edwards – Evil is PART of the divine glory
-quote
The shining forth of god’s glory would be very imperfect both because the PARTS of divine glory would not shine forth as the other do….nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
So you also treat that proposition *AS-IF* it is not true
Roland – here is how I would sum it up for you
1) You are at peace with EVERYTHING that has been divinely decreed to INFALLIBLY come to pass
2) You are NOT at peace with SOME things that have been divinely decreed to INFALLIBLY come to pass
brdmod wrote:
Roland – here is how I would sum it up for you
1) You are at peace with EVERYTHING that has been divinely decreed to INFALLIBLY come to pass
2) You are NOT at peace with SOME things that have been divinely decreed to INFALLIBLY come to pass
I wrote: Yes, generally, I would agree with your summary.
Roland,
So you are saying that there are things happening that God does not want? God does not always get what He wants?
Abortion is terrible, and we go out every week to offer a choice to women.
But in Calvinism, yesterday’s abortion was what God wanted or it would not have happened. This aint rocket science.
Simple question to you: Were yesterday’s abortions in your city what God wanted?
FOH, thanks for the reply.
You wrote:
Simple question to you: Were yesterday’s abortions in your city what God wanted?
I wrote: I would not say that God wanted abortions. I believe He decreed all things after the counsel of His own will. Does that include abortions? Yes, I believe He decreed them. He declared that they would be. Did He want them? No. Does this mean that God operates contrary to His own desires? Honestly, I don’t know. Scripture has not revealed to us these mysteries. Scripture does not say, specifically, that God decreed abortions, sin, etc. Isaiah 46:10 ” Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all my pleasure.”
I don’t know how to read Isaiah 46:10 except in a plain reading. It says what it says. God dictates the purpose within history, beforehand. He dictates what will happen. He is sovereign, His purpose will stand, it cannot be changed, and is the product not of whim or arbitrariness, but of His pleasurable will. Thanks for reading.
Roland,
I know. I was there. I am (still) a Reformed church sent missionary (and former Calvinist).
Isaiah 46 (remember…remember …. you are saying that God decreed all of last year’s abortions from this text).
Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’
11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do.
———-
Really?
Your “simple reading” mandates that this passage in prophetic, poetic Isaiah declares (without ambiguity) that God decreed all the millions of abortions in the world?
Really? Someone would say that in a simple reading?
Or would they take off their Calvinist lenses and say that God will do what He planned to do (which might be create a world where He wins despite man having free choices)?
Someone (with no Reformed prejudice) would walk up to this passage and say, “Well I guess all of the million abortions were God’s doing”??
Nah. They wouldnt. Only when they have learned the Reform tradition (as I did).
His purpose will stand. He will get what He wants in the end cuz He rules. But no ruler (anywhere in the world or the Bible) always gets what he wants ….even in the hearts of his subjects…. or else they are mere puppets.
You wrote:
Nah. They wouldnt. Only when they have learned the Reform tradition (as I did).
I wrote: I’ve addressed this in other discussions that I had with you. I came to Calvinism by reading Scripture. I was reading Scripture and I came across verses such as Romans 8, Ephesians 1, John 6, and others, that caused me to question the idea of libertarian freewill. My pastors always prefaced these verses with the idea that humans have libertarian freewill. Basically, they told that before you misunderstand Scripture, you must know that humans have freewill, and God would not violate that freewill. Then I can understand what God is saying in these verses, chapters. It was not until I heard RC Sproul’s teachings that I believe these verses clicked and made sense. So, I was not taught Reformed theology and then the Bible. It was the opposite.
You wrote:
Your “simple reading” mandates that this passage in prophetic, poetic Isaiah declares (without ambiguity) that God decreed all the millions of abortions in the world?
Really? Someone would say that in a simple reading?
I wrote: I wrote earlier that the Bible does not say the God decreed abortions. I wrote that God decreed all things, whatsoever comes to pass, if that includes abortions then God decreed them. I’m trying as best as I can to explain that God’s decree as revealed to us in Scripture is not exhaustive but general. From the general, we can reason, to the particular. However, I would not ascribe sin to God because Scripture does not ascribe sin to God. I know, I can’t explain this as you would like only as I understand it. Thanks for reading.
Roland,
I really have to say that I am surprised by this.
This is the same way that most theological positions and cults started. Everybody “struggles” with verses and passages.
We all as new believers struggle with Jesus saying “My God, My God” and “I am going to your Father and my Father, your God and my God….” Many a JW has stopped at my door (here and in my mission field country where they largely outnumber evangelicals) and said, “See, Jesus cant be God–do you have a three-headed God!?”
It’s not the struggling with verses and passages that makes a position. It’s the deciding who will give you the answers. And you reinforced my assumptions with your statements below. You did not come to Calvinism by reading Scripture! You came to questions and puzzling passages by reading Scripture (For instance: “If anyone does not hate his mother….”).
That’s fine!
But… “It was not until I heard RC Sproul’s teachings that I believe these verses clicked and made sense.” Bingo! Thousands….millions read CS Lewis, Gordon Fee, WL Craig, NT Wright, Greg Boyd when struggling with passages and come out as Arminians, Anabaptists, Pentecostals, Molinists, and Anglicans. That’s fine too!
But they cant claim that they came to that position “by reading Scripture.”
IMO, one would never come to the idea that God decreed all abortions from reading Scripture…and you said so yourself.
“I wrote earlier that the Bible does not say the God decreed abortions. I wrote that God decreed all things, whatsoever comes to pass…”
But then you go on and say basically ….Well since we have a few phrases from confessions …I guess He did decree them.
You see, you WANT to go with the idea that God is good and God is love (and did not decree/ desire/ take pleasure in evil), but you need to stick with man-made phrases like “God decreed all things” and “whatsoever comes to pass” (BTW, if quoting that phrase ahead of Scripture does not ring the “tilt” button in your mind, then I wont be able to say much to you).
It appears to me that Calvinists take man-made ideas and phrases and elevate them as Scripture, even making them the lens by which they read all Scripture.
All Scripture must be read through the lens that God decreed “whatsoever comes to pass” so….ouch….even though I dont want to say it…yes He decreed for His own pleasure, things He hates and abhors…. uh….while not sinning (not “really” decreeing them) … and telling us not to allow and do those things!
Why live such a conflicted theology that cannot be understood or explained?
All because some men decided that a few passages have to be read a certain way and they have to become the lens by which we see all other passages.
I just got tired of doing that, living so conflicted about God’s “good” nature. So I put down AW Pink, Boettner (Sproul was just a newbie) and looked for simple, understandable, believable explanations for the few passages that got me started on my Reformed path.
It is such a pleasure to read the Bible, knowing that God is good and the evil that exists was not His doing—-not just saying it (while firmly saying the exact opposite). What a conflicted message: He decreed and delighted in “whatsoever comes to pass” (the key, foundational phrase that is nowhere found in the Word)….but uh….not sin. Good News! Jesus may have died for you.
Good News! God may have a good plan for your life (or more likely, created you for wrath and torture).
Good News! We sidewalk counsel against abortion (crying and pleading with women), but we know in the end (the next day) that God actually wanted them to have those abortions (We didnt want them, but He did…Good News!).
Good News! God wants to have a personal relationship with you (which is not that “personal” since He gives you every impulse and desire you have).
Good News! Some of your family members (although baptized “into the fellowship of the church” as infants) may have been created for torture (as you may have been— only just being programmed to think that you are a believer)… and there is not one thing you can do about it.
And all this Roland….. all this Good News cuz we allow some guys to come up with ideas and phrases like “decrees whatsoever comes to pass” and we elevate those ideas and make them be the lens by which we filter all things.
Good News!
Thanks for your reply and comments. There was a lot in your reply to comment on. I’ll do my best to respond.
FOH wrote:
Why live such a conflicted theology that cannot be understood or explained?
I wrote: I don’t believe Reformed theology is conflicted theology. Just because I cannot understand something or fully explain it or make it reasonable, doesn’t mean I cannot accept it as truth. There are portions of Scripture that are not reasonable, logical, or whatever term a person wants to use, but I accept them because they are God breathed. Isaiah 45:7 says that God forms the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity, I the LORD, do all these things.
Does it make sense that God makes both peace and calamity, light and darkness? From the provisionist’s perspective, God is good, so He cannot create darkness or calamity, because those are bad things. The provisionist has to reject some portions of Scripture based on their understanding of God’s goodness. The Calvinist doesn’t because our understanding of God is based on Scripture. If God says He created both peace and calamity, I accept it. I am not concerned with being double minded as I’ve been accused of.
FOH wrote:It’s not the struggling with verses and passages that makes a position. It’s the deciding who will give you the answers.
I wrote: Agree 100%. But there is more to this. It’s not that I just decided from whom I will receive the answers, the answers had to be tested from Scripture. I believe that the Reformed hermeneutic is the most Scriptural. We are willing to accept truths about God as they are clearly expressed in Scripture. Isaiah 46:9-10
9 Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
He declares the end from the beginning, things not yet done, His counsel shall stand, He will do all His pleasure. I zealously affirm what God expresses about Himself in Scripture.
FOH wrote:It appears to me that Calvinists take man-made ideas and phrases and elevate them as Scripture, even making them the lens by which they read all Scripture.
I wrote: They are not man-made ideas as they have been drawn from Scripture. I’ve never met a Reformed Christian who elevates our ideas to the level of Scripture, even though I know some who act like it, but they deny with words. Everybody has a lens through which they read all Scripture. We all come to conclusions about God at some point in our lives. I think it spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally it is healthy to have affirmations regarding God. Leighton is always talking about the goodness of God. He reads Scripture through this lens. Leighton says God is good, so everyone must have a chance to hear the Gospel. God is good, so everyone must be able to respond to the Gospel. I would say, probably most Calvinists, God is good and if everyone has not heard the Gospel, He is still good. God is good, even if man is fallen and is not able to respond to the Gospel. God’s goodness is unalterable because God is unalterable. I also believe that God’s goodness has been manifested throughout history. He does interact with creation and shows us His goodness.
Has God been good to everyone? We would both say yes but we would probably have different perspectives. I don’t believe God must or even needs to choose to be good to everyone in the same manner. He loves the world but Scripture also declares the He hates sinners.
Psalm 5:4-6
4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.
6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood;
The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
How is it that God can love the world, yet hate sinners? Isn’t the world full of sinners? Haven’t we all fallen short of the glory of God? As a Calvinist I can hold to both of these truths, God’s love for the world and His hatred of sinners. Before embracing Calvinism, as Calvinist teach the Bible, I could not because my pastors would explain away God’s hatred of sinners. Sorry for the long posts. There is much more to say but for brevity’s sake I’ll stop here. Thanks for reading.
Roland,
I have to admit…you have the talking points down! You go Sproul!
It is so simplistic though.
Causes calamity. It NEVER says causes all calamity.
Do you have children? Do you discipline them? Do you cause them pain?
Let’s say you are a dad who believes in spanking or hard discipline. Are you causing them harm? Yes! But as discipline or judgement.
Of course God rains down calamity (harm, judgement) on nations that resist Him and promote evil.
But the Reformed position is simple. God CAUSED (before time) those nations to do evil so He could judge them (while blaming them).
Non-Reformed Roland: Son, dont go there or I will cause you pain. Son goes. Roland causes pain (calamity).
Reformed Roland: Son, dont go there or I will cause you pain. Roland TAKES son there, brings him home, and then causes pain to son for doing it.
Eww. I’ll take non-Reformed Roland any day…..
And that is the God of the Bible.
Reformed God. Causes (decrees immutably before time) that pagans offer child sacrifice (calamity) … then shows how mighty He is by judging them (causing calamity).
Yes He causes calamity. The second one above…but not the first. That wrathful, spiteful, conflicted God that you describe is only that way because you insist on a few verses meaning He causes ALL calamity. The Bible never says that. Aristotle- Augustine- Calvin brought it in and now people just accept it.
I rejected it (as did Leighton and jillions of other former Calvinists) ….
We reject the idea that God causes all calamity (child sacrifice) ….. but then again you could just say that we were decreed to reject it!
Thanks for the reply, FOH.
FOH wrote
But the Reformed position is simple. God CAUSED (before time) those nations to do evil so He could judge them (while blaming them).
I wrote: Yes, I believe Reformed theology is simple, as in easy to understand, we try not to complicate our beliefs. Yes, God caused… I would direct you to Isaiah 10 to take a look at what God did with the Assyrians and their king.
FOH wrote:Yes He causes calamity. The second one above…but not the first. That wrathful, spiteful, conflicted God that you describe is only that way because you insist on a few verses meaning He causes ALL calamity. The Bible never says that. Aristotle- Augustine- Calvin brought it in and now people just accept it.
I wrote: I agree, the text does not say that God causes all calamity. But then what about text that speak of God’s control over things? Are there persons, events, actions, etc. that are outside of God’s control? If so, what does that say about God? I believe Scripture teaches us that God is in control of both good and evil. Sometimes He causes the evil, sometimes He permits the evil. I also believe that Scripture teaches us that God is not evil but He is good.
Thanks for reading.
Thanks for the reply.
You wrote:Your “simple reading” mandates that this passage in prophetic, poetic Isaiah declares (without ambiguity) that God decreed all the millions of abortions in the world?
Really? Someone would say that in a simple reading?
I wrote: I thought I made this clear in another post. I am not saying that a simple reading of this passage leads without ambiguity to the belief that God decreed all the millions of abortions in the world. I am saying that God decreed ‘from ancient times things that are not yet done.’ The things that are not yet done includes all things. So, yes, God decreed abortions but that is not a conclusion I reached from a simple reading of Isaiah 46.
Do you see the error in your reading? You wrote that this passage is prophetic, poetic. So, does this mean that God has not literally declared the end from the beginning? So, in Isaiah 46:11Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.
When God says He has spoken it, He will bring it to pass, He has purposed it, He will do it, is that just poetic, prophetic language? Are saying that God doesn’t really mean He has spoken it, brought it to pass, purposed it, do it?
This is what happens when we read Scripture through our lenses, worldview, paradigms, etc. We either embrace Scripture because it aligns with our lens, or we have to explain it in a manner that accords with our lens. My suspicion is that if you believe in libertarian freewill, this text presents a challenge to your lens. Because in a libertarian freewill perspective God cannot violate libertarian freewill. Because then it is not really libertarian freewill. That’s the wall Leighton has constructed, God will not trespass on this territory. As a Calvinist, I believe God can and does trespass all over our “libertarian” freewill because Scripture has many recordings of God doing so. We haven’t built walls around God, provisionists have.
Roland,
It never ceases to amaze me what Calvinists will wrench out of context.
Isaiah is FULL of allegory, illusion, and poetry.
“Go down, sit in the dust,
Virgin Daughter Babylon; [Babylon is a virgin? a daughter?]
sit on the ground without a throne,
2 Take millstones and grind flour;
take off your veil. [wearing a veil?]
Lift up your skirts, bare your legs, [wearing a skirt?]
and wade through the streams.
3 Your nakedness will be exposed
and your shame uncovered.
I will take vengeance;
I will spare no one.”
4 Our Redeemer—the Lord Almighty is his name—
is the Holy One of Israel.
5 “Sit in silence, go into darkness,
queen city of the Babylonians;
no more will you be called
queen of kingdoms.
6 I was angry with my people [Why is He angry at His people for doing exactly what He decreed they do?]
and desecrated my inheritance;
—————– Isaiah goes on and on with imagery that you would not take literally or extrapolate from—–
You run way too far with one half a verse…”end from the beginning” etc, making them all say what Aristotle or Mary-worshipping Augustine said. Making them say more than they say…. so that it confirms a deterministic position.
I almost feel like you are repeating this nonsensical stuff to take up our time??
I have little time for your kind of hermeneutic…..
“I am saying that God decreed ‘from ancient times things that are not yet done.’ The things that are not yet done includes all things. So, yes, God decreed abortions….”
One vague verse about God decreeing something…. you make it say that He decreed all things at all times…. and BAM…you have God wanting all those abortions. We dont want them…but He does. We fight against them…and plead with women (my wife and I do on the sidewalk all the time)…. but He really wants them all along.
You run with that Good News! Yum!
Thanks for your reply.
FOH wrote: Isaiah is FULL of allegory, illusion, and poetry.
I wrote: I agree there is some, I would not say FULL, allegory, illusion, and poetry. But the question is the text I quoted from Isaiah allegory, illusion, and poetry? If so, show me where, how, and why it is either allegory, illusion, and/or poetry.
FOH wrote: I almost feel like you are repeating this nonsensical stuff to take up our time??
I wrote: I don’t want to waste your time. If you feel like I am just repeating myself and you want to leave the discussion, I’m at peace with that, no offense taken. I will repeat myself because I only have what has been written. I can’t, don’t know, how to make up new stuff. There comes a point in discussion that it has reached its end.
Thanks for reading.
Roland:
I said “bye” a minute ago but will come back in for one more comment…that I want you and others to see.
Those who have been taught Reformed theology (by Sproul and others, as you admit) will take verses from this imagery in Isaiah and run way too far with them …all the while saying you are “simply” reading them. It really aint “simply” saying what you say…but you can claim it does.
But then when you encounter the many, many passages that talk of God’s “love for all,” or Christ “dying for all,” or Christ “calling all men to Himself” …. or “never have I seen a faith like this in all Israel” or all the people that Hebrews 11 lifts up for their faith…. you say the reading is not so simple. We need help to understand that reading.
Those hundreds of passages appear simple to us. In fact it appears much more clear then these “virgin” and “lift up your skirts” passages in Isaiah.
But noooooo. Those Isaiah passages are “clear” and simple reading.
But somehow these “God loves all” kinds of passages need a special insider understanding….
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
It just makes no sense…well yes it does….. you take the vague Isaiah passages and make them say what works for you and then discount or “help to interpret” all the pretty clear passages that dont work for you.
It appears disingenuous that you take those imagery, vague “end from the beginning” “lift your skirt” passages as clear and the others as not.
Christ told the masses/ multitude on the hillside…. “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”
In Mark 10, Christ loved the rich young ruler, and “had compassion toward him” and told him to follow Him. That is the Son of God loving someone, calling someone, and watching him resist His grace. That’s pretty simple reading. And resistible grace. Offered by a loving Christ.
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
If you cannot see Sovereign God saying with His own mouth that He wanted men to come to Him but they resisted His call….that He did NOT get what He wanted…. that it would be disingenuous to say that He “really wanted them to resist—-and decreed it before time” then I pity that you cannot read the Scripture “simply”.
Keep those Sproul-filter books close cuz you are gonna need them a LOT if you read through the Bible. Otherwise, just put those books aside and read the Bible simply.
FOH writes, “If you cannot see Sovereign God saying with His own mouth that He wanted men to come to Him but they resisted His call….that He did NOT get what He wanted…. that it would be disingenuous to say that He “really wanted them to resist—-and decreed it before time” then I pity that you cannot read the Scripture “simply”. ”
Among the verses, FOH seems to have torn out of his Bible –
– “All those who the Father gives me will come to me. Him who comes to me I will in no way throw out.”
– “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.”
– “And Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Here’ another quote from the article:
The first option is this: Shouldn’t a consistent Calvinist direct his frustrations toward God rather than the world? According to the claims of Calvin, it is God who determined the bad beliefs and behaviors Calvinists are lamenting.
As a former Calvinist, Leighton should know that this is not the Calvinist’s posture towards God’s will. If anything, history has shown that Calvinists, seek God to bear what He has decreed upon us. We look to God for strength, not in frustration, but knowing that He is omnipotent can relieve us of our afflictions. Have you ever read what some Calvinists write regarding suffering? Has Leighton ever read what we historically have believed and practiced regarding suffering?
Roland
As a former Calvinist, Leighton should know that this is not the Calvinist’s posture towards God’s will.
br.d
Correct – but that misses the question.
The question asks if that posture is “coherent” with the doctrine or antagonistic to the doctrine?
What the article means by “coherent” is LOGICALLY Coherent”.
When a father does a work every day is it “coherent” for his son to treat his father’s work *AS-IF* it wasn’t his work?
br.d
Correct – but that misses the question.
The question asks if that posture is “coherent” with the doctrine or antagonistic to the doctrine?
What the article means by “coherent” is LOGICALLY Coherent”
I wrote: Here’s one thing I will not do. I will not subject God’s Word to logical coherence. That’s not my test of whether doctrine is true or not. If I have to test Scripture by logical coherence, then logical coherence is my guide. I mention this because I have had discussions with others who want to test Scripture by logic or philosophy, which I will not do. So I will write things that are not logically coherent. You can attack that if you like, so be it.
Here’s my response as to why I believe God ordain all things and that my frustration should not be directed at God. Hear Job’s words 2:10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Is Job correct to believe that we indeed accept good from God and shall we not accept adversity? It follows that Job’s statement is correct as “in all this Job did not sin with his lips.”
But, this does not mean that I am to be indifferent regarding the state of the world. There are many admonitions to push back against the things of the world. Yes, but that’s where the non-Calvinists gets us, right? Because we believe that God ordained all things, then ultimately we are pushing back against God’s will. Is that logically coherent? No because we are pushing back on the very thing we claim to embrace, God’s will.
Luke 2:49, Jesus said He must be about His Father’s business (we could say will). But yet Jesus prayed to the Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but what you will.” If Jesus is God (which I believe), and He knows all things (which I believe), He must have known He was going to be crucified, why would He pray otherwise? Why would Jesus pray against His Father’s will?
Roland
I will not subject God’s Word to logical coherence.
br.d
I wonder how that fits with warnings in scripture against being double-minded.
And Jesus’ commandment – “Let your yes be yes – and your no be no – for anything else comes of evil”
A manifestation of LOGICAL incoherence is a YES-NO position – which Jesus commands against.
So here is the question – and below is the answer
I am at peace with everything that has infallibly come to pass?
Answer
YES-NO
br.d wrote:br.d
I wonder how that fits with warnings in scripture against being double-minded.
And Jesus’ commandment – “Let your yes be yes – and your no be no – for anything else comes of evil”
A manifestation of LOGICAL incoherence is a YES-NO position – which Jesus commands against.
So here is the question – and below is the answer
I am at peace with everything that has infallibly come to pass?
Answer
YES-NO
I wrote: According to your way of thinking, logical coherence is YES or NO. Let me ask you this, does God hate sinners (Ps. 5:4-6)? YES or NO. Does God love the world (John 3:16)? YES or NO. Is the world made up of sinners? YES or NO. How can God love a world that is full of sinners He hates?
Roland
Let me ask you this
br.d
Sure – but these will be questions to test your answers as well :-]
Roland
Does God hate sinners (Ps. 5:4-6)?
br.d
Answer: Not from Psalm 5:4-6
What is stated is: “He takes no PLEASURE from wickedness”
So you would then say you are “at peace” with the following?
John Calvin:
-quote
Hence they [humans] are merely INSTRUMENTS INTO WHICH god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS and converts to any purpose at his PLEASURE (Institutes)
Roland
Does God love the world (John 3:16)? YES or NO.
br.d
That’s what the verse says!
So the answer for me must be YES
But of course it must be YES-NO for you.
Roland
Is the world made up of sinners? YES or NO.
br.d
If any man say he is without sin he deceives himself
So the answer would be YES for me.
But for you we have the following:
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal GOOD PLEASURE of god…they are not found, but MADE worthy of destruction. (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)
So the question here is – are you at at peace with what Calvin’s god has MADE?
Roland
How can God love a world that is full of sinners He hates?
br.d
This question is predicated on a false presupposition.
So there is not answer for me to make on it.
Thanks for your reply.
br.d
Answer: Not from Psalm 5:4-6
What is stated is: “He takes no PLEASURE from wickedness”
I wrote: You completely disregarded the second half of Psalm 5:5 You (God) hate all workers of iniquity.
No, I am not “at peace” with Calvin’s quote. I agree with it but not in the sense of being “at peace.”
br.d
That’s what the verse says!
So the answer for me must be YES
But of course it must be YES-NO for you.
I wrote: Not sure what you mean by “But of course it must be YES-NO for you.”
br.d
If any man say he is without sin he deceives himself
So the answer would be YES for me.
I wrote: Hey, we agree on something!
br.d wrote: But for you we have the following:
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal GOOD PLEASURE of god…they are not found, but MADE worthy of destruction. (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)
So the question here is – are you at at peace with what Calvin’s god has MADE?
I wrote: Not sure about “but MADE worthy of destruction.” I have give this one more thought. I’d like to see Calvin’s quotes in context, I’ll look up later on.
br.d
This question is predicated on a false presupposition.
So there is not answer for me to make on it.
I wrote: I’d like to know what the false presupposition is in my question? Thanks for reading.
You didn’t do the other half where you give actual quotes from Calvinist authorities to compare or contrast, so I’d still be interested if you have the time or interest.
Thanks for your reply Brian. Sorry I did not as I do not have quotes from Calvinists authorities, I would need some time.
But again – that misses the point – because it misses the question
If a Calvinist authority quote asserts YES
And a Calvinist authority quote asserts NO
Then we are back to Jesus command against a YES-NO answer
And we are back to scripture’s warning about double-mindedness
Thank you Roland for replying with examples from the post as I requested. You didn’t do the other half where you give actual quotes from Calvinist authorities to compare or contrast, so I’d still be interested if you have the time or interest.
I don’t think it is fair to suggest Leighton is asking Calvinists to “accept” evil as good in itself, but that it would seem consistent to expect a Calvinist to have peace for all the evil that God has decreed and even to be glorifying or thanking Him for decreeing each specific evil event, if they believe that such decreeing is true and God is pleased to have decreed each evil thing.
Nor is Leighton, I don’t think, though I might be wrong, and he can speak for himself, saying that we shouldn’t take our frustrations in prayer to God. He seems to be wondering why Calvinists don’t be less expressive of frustrations with other people, knowing the frustration of man does not change the settled decreed will of God, already preset to work out only one way, according to Calvinists.
Brian wrote:
He seems to be wondering why Calvinists don’t be less expressive of frustrations with other people, knowing the frustration of man does not change the settled decreed will of God, already preset to work out only one way, according to Calvinists.
I wrote:
Thanks for the reply, you been kind in your responses, hopefully I have been as well. I know these are very important issues that can get emotional.
I’m curious to know what you believe Scripture teaches regarding God’s foreknowledge? Does God have perfect foreknowledge of all future events? Do you hold to a Molinist position of middle knowledge? Are you an open theist (I don’t mean to be offensive just curious)? Do you hold to dynamic omniscience? What about Leighton? Is he a Molinist as well like William Lane Craig?
Thank you Roland for the kind remarks. The simple response is that I do hold to dynamic foreknowledge. And Leighton’s view of foreknowledge seems to be appeal to mystery that divine foreknowledge includes knowing all libertarian freewill outcomes, though he wouldn’t call himself a Molinist or believer in Simple Foreknowledge, at least not yet. But you’ll have to ask him.
Here’s some of the Scripture evidence to explain my view.
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”.
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 lie… or that changes happening in God’s mind is imperfection is also a lie. God’s Word counters clearly those lies. And God’s mind cannot believe lies as truths.
Thanks for the reply, good stuff, I’m going to have to chew on this for a bit. I’ve never heard exactly what Leighton holds to that’s why I asked. But thanks for giving a thoughtful and biblical response to my question.,
brianwagner writes, “…it would seem consistent to expect a Calvinist to have peace for all the evil that God has decreed and even to be glorifying or thanking Him for decreeing each specific evil event, if they believe that such decreeing is true and God is pleased to have decreed each evil thing. ”
I see the Calvinist talking the position of Habakkuk, “For though the fig tree doesn’t flourish, Nor fruit be in the vines; The labor of the olive fails, The fields yield no food; The flocks are cut off from the fold, And there is no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in Yahweh. I will be joyful in the God of my salvation! Yahweh, the Lord, is my strength. He makes my feet like deer’s feet, And enables me to go in high places.”
One more comment regarding Leighton’s views regarding Calvinism. His video titled “Where did all these Calvinists come from?” In the video he says that irresistible grace leads to an attitude of indifference regarding bringing people to church. “Why do I need to worry at all about what the lost think? If God wants to save them, He going to save them whether I’m doing hymns, whether my church’s bathrooms smell like, you know, the local pub…” He goes on to say that Calvinists shouldn’t worry how clean our bathrooms are. Here’s Leighton’s “representation” of Calvinism: God is sovereign, His grace is irresistible, therefore, don’t worry about the lost and don’t clean your church bathrooms.
That’s not a fair representation of Calvinistic doctrine and practice. Look at Calvinists history, we are zealous for God’s glory and one way that His glory is manifested is through the preaching of His Gospel and the saving of souls. Calvinists do not teach to be indifferent and apathetic to those who are outside of Christ.
Roland writes, “Look at Calvinists history, we are zealous for God’s glory and one way that His glory is manifested is through the preaching of His Gospel and the saving of souls.”
Calvinists understand that God has chosen to save people through the preaching of the gospel. No preaching; no one gets saved. Calvinists also know that they only plant and water through preaching and it is God who gives the increase from that preaching. Certainly, God has determined who will be saved and who will not and just as certainly God has determined to save through the preaching by believers. That is why everyone, Calvinist or not, sends missionaries throughout the world. Everyone knows that God rewards the efforts of those who preach by using that preaching to save people. Just because God already knows those whom He will save does not detract from this – it enhances those efforts.
rhutchin wrote:
Calvinists understand that God has chosen to save people through the preaching of the gospel. No preaching; no one gets saved. Calvinists also know that they only plant and water through preaching and it is God who gives the increase from that preaching. Certainly, God has determined who will be saved and who will not and just as certainly God has determined to save through the preaching by believers. That is why everyone, Calvinist or not, sends missionaries throughout the world. Everyone knows that God rewards the efforts of those who preach by using that preaching to save people. Just because God already knows those whom He will save does not detract from this – it enhances those efforts.
I wrote: I’m a Calvinist, I agree with everything you wrote. Did I misstate something in my comment that makes me appear to be something other than a Calvinist?
Roland writes, “Did I misstate something in my comment that makes me appear to be something other than a Calvinist?”
Nope. I was just reinforcing what you were saying.
rhutchin
Everyone knows that God rewards the efforts of those who preach
br.d
That would be like me rewarding my arduino for doing what I decreed it to do :-]
rhutchin: “Everyone knows that God rewards the efforts of those who preach”
br.d: “That would be like me rewarding my arduino for doing what I decreed it to do”
God rewards those He calls to preach. Only br.d would confuse an arduino created by a human with a human created by God.
rhutchin
Only br.d would confuse an arduino created by a human with a human created by God.
br.d
Well – when we tell the WHOLE TRUTH and realize we are talking about Calvin’s god – then there is no confusion.
They both have impulses that are 100% determined by an external mind – and not permitted to be/do otherwise.
So if I were a good “consistent” Calvinist – I would reward my arduino for doing what I programmed it to do. :-]
brdmod writes, “They both have impulses that are 100% determined by an external mind – and not permitted to be/do otherwise.”
LOL!!!
rhutchin
LOL!!!
br.d
That is funny!
Calvinists even laugh in DOUBLE-SPEAK! ;-]
br.d: “That is funny! Calvinists even laugh in DOUBLE-SPEAK!”
LOL!!! LOL!!!
Fromoverhere: “I said “bye” a minute ago but will come back in for one more comment…that I want you and others to see.”
I appreciate every time you comment. I always like reading what you write. And BR.D. (who I assume is the same as brdmod, right?) and Brianwagner and Reggie and everyone else who shares their insights against Calvinism. So keep ’em coming!
I also appreciate that the Calvinists here take the time to explain their views. It helps us all get a clearer picture of the ways they twist Scripture and the word games they play to cover up the bad, unbiblical parts of their theology. So … keep it up too, guys! You’re helping in ways you can’t even imagine!
And this is from comments farther below, but I’m putting it here. Filemon said that I was confusing God’s sovereignty with causality. But I agree with brdmod that it’s that Calvinists who do this, not us. It actually made me chuckle to see a Calvinist accusing me of the very thing that THEIR theology is guilty of, not mine.
Heather wrote:
I also appreciate that the Calvinists here take the time to explain their views. It helps us all get a clearer picture of the ways they twist Scripture and the word games they play to cover up the bad, unbiblical parts of their theology. So … keep it up too, guys! You’re helping in ways you can’t even imagine!
Roland wrote: Calvinist do not twist Scripture. Can you give me an example where Calvinist twist Scripture? I gave several examples in other posts that show how Calvinist draw our doctrine from the plain and simple reading of Scripture. You accuse and you don’t give examples of your accusations.
Roland says: “Can you give me an example where Calvinist twist Scripture?”
Calvinists won’t agree with me, of course, and they will cite various other unrelated Scriptures to support their twisted views, but for starters …
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world …” CALVINIST TWIST: “Oh, yeah, but ‘the world’ doesn’t mean all people. It means all the elect (or ‘the cosmos,’ as my Calvinist pastor said).” Or “Yeah, God loves the world, but He has two kinds of love: a saving one for the elect and a ‘gives you food and sunshine’ one for the non-elect.” Or “God saves those He loves, so if He doesn’t save the non-elect, it means He didn’t love them. So He doesn’t mean ‘all people’ here, just all kinds of people.” (They start from their own presuppositions and interpret Scripture according to it.)
John 3:16 “that whoever believes in him will not perish …” And Romans 10:13 “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” CALVINIST TWIST: “This doesn’t mean that anyone can believe in Him and be saved, but just that all the believers – the elect – will believe in Him and be saved.”
The Bible says “Seek me and live (Amos 5:4) … You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13) … Choose this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15).” (And there’s many more “seek/choose” verses not listed here.) CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, God says to seek Him, but He doesn’t mean you actually can seek Him until and unless He causes you to seek Him. And He will only cause the elect to do this, after He gives them new life.”
The Bible says Jesus died for all people, all sins (Romans 5:18, 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 Timothy 4:10, Titus 2:11). CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but Jesus wouldn’t waste His blood on those who are predestined for hell, so Jesus really didn’t die for all people, just all kinds of people, all the elect.” (Once again, starting from their own presuppositions.)
Romans 3:11 talks about the general condition of mankind when left to ourselves, that no one seeks God. This is why God didn’t leave us to ourselves. He wants us to seek Him and find Him. And so He created the nations (Acts 17:27) and put evidence of Himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and speaks to our hearts (Ecc. 3:11) – to lead us to know He’s real so that we can seek Him. CALVINIST TWIST: “‘No one seeks God’ means that no one can seek God, that it’s impossible for man to seek God unless God makes him do it. And He will only cause the elect to do this. No one else can seek God or think about God or even want God.”
The Bible says that we get the Holy Spirit as a result of turning to God in faith. Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized … and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” CALVINIST TWIST: “Oh no, we need the Holy Spirit to make us born again before we can repent and turn to God in faith. And this only happens to the elect.” (In some cases, Calvinists don’t twist verses; they just flat-out ignore, deny, or defy them.)
James 1:13-15 says God does not tempt anyone to sin. CALVINIST TWIST: “Yeah, He doesn’t ‘tempt’ anyone to sin, but He doesn’t have to because we do it willingly on our own …. because He gave us the sin-nature that comes only with the built-in desires to sin, never the desire to do good, and we can only make the choices that these built-in desires tell us to make, which for the non-elect means that they can only choose to sin and reject God because that’s the only desires that come with the unregenerated nature that God created them to have. God predestined their sins and rebellion from the beginning and orchestrates it all so that it works out just like He planned, but He doesn’t ‘force’ us to sin. He just gives us the nature that makes us ‘want’ to sin, and only to sin, all on our own. And we can’t choose anything else. Because if God wasn’t in control of all sin and evil – preplanning it, causing it – then He wouldn’t be God.”
Romans 5:8 says that God demonstrates His love for sinners by sending Jesus to die for us. Romans 3:23 says we are all sinners. Therefore, God sent Jesus to die for all of us. CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but God meant there are two kinds of sinners, the elected ones and the non-elected ones. And so Romans 5:8 must be only about the elected ones because Jesus wouldn’t die for non-elected people. it would be a waste of His blood.”
Romans 3:25-26 says that God demonstrates His justice by sending Jesus to the cross to punish sin. CALVINIST TWIST: “No, God created most people to be sinners so that He could show off His justice by punishing them in hell for sinning.”
Romans 10:17 says that faith comes from hearing the Word of God. CALVINIST TWIST: “That’s right, faith comes from hearing. But (contradictorily), God has to give the elect faith first so that they can understand and respond to the Gospel.”
Romans 2:4 says that God’s kindness is meant to lead us to repentance. CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but the non-elect can never repent, and so God’s kindness to them is just His way of showing a non-saving type of love to them, before sending them to hell for eternity for being the unbelievers He predestined them to be.”
The Bible says there are things God never wanted or planned, that people made their own decisions contrary to what God wanted (Hosea 8:4, Isaiah 30:1, Jeremiah 19:4-5, 1 Kings 20:42, Acts 14:16, Matthew 23:37). CALVINIST TWIST: “God preplans and causes and controls everything! Or else He can’t be God.”
2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish. And 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God desires all men to be saved. CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but He only means He wants all the elect to be saved.” Or “Yes, He ‘desires’ all people to be saved but He has a greater desire than that: To show off His justice by punishing sin so that He can get glory and worship for it. And so He needed sinners to punish, and so He predestined many people to be unrepentant sinners so that He could put them in hell. He still ‘wants’ them to be saved. It makes Him sad to put them in hell. But He wanted glory/worship for punishing sin even more.”
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Calvinists trade in a clear, plain understanding of Scripture for their own twisted, contradictory version. They are upside-down but think they’re right-side up because they’ve been trained to see it that way. But if they have to add “Yes, but …” to all easily-understood verses, then it’s because they are trying too hard to make the Bible fit into their twisted theology. It would be so much easier and make so much more sense if they ditched their twisted theology and their Calvinist presuppositions/teachers … and just read the Bible in the plain, easily understood, consistent way it was written. Then they wouldn’t have the horrible contradictions and distortions that they have to work so hard to “fix.”
I’ve said this before, but … If someone can’t see the damage Calvinism does to God’s Word and God’s character, then they either don’t really understand Calvinism or they don’t really understand God’s Word and character.
Thanks for the reply, Heather, good stuff to interact with. First, I asked if you could provide Calvinists who twist Scripture. What you wrote to me was something your pastor said and I believe your own words that you believe Calvinists interpret Scripture in the way you described. I was looking for something along the lines of a Calvinist author who interprets John 3:16 as the world not being the world, stuff like that. I’m curious to know if you have read or heard Calvinist twist Scriptures and if you show me where they did it. Everyone has presuppositions and people should deny that they do. I admit I have presuppositions. I need to line them up with God’s word or get rid of them.
Heather wrote:
Calvinists won’t agree with me, of course, and they will cite various other unrelated Scriptures to support their twisted views, but for starters …
Roland wrote:
When someone begins their response with a statement like this from you above, I almost feel as if they are not going to listen or even interact with how I respond. Right away it leads me to believe that I am wasting my time. I won’t agree with everything you say, I suspect you won’t agree with me, but there are some points of agreement. Generally, as far as the Scripture you cited, I agree with what you are basically saying. I cannot deny the basic plain reading of Scripture. No Christian should deny the basic plain simple reading of Scripture.
Regarding John 3:16 as a Calvinist, yes God does love the world, it plainly simply said so. He loved the world so much that He gave us Jesus. I agree that anyone can believe in Jesus. There are no requirements to believing in Jesus unlike the ethnic requirements in the Old Testament for a person to be a Jew. I know some people who were not ethnically Jewish were religiously Jewish. Generally, a Jewish person was an ethnic Jew. In the new covenant, that requirement and any other is absent. Remember who Jesus told this to, Nicodemus, a Pharisee. In one sense Jesus is telling Nicodemus that God’s love goes beyond Israel, it goes to the world.
Regarding the whoever and everyone (Romans 10:13), I agree with you, whoever believes in Jesus will not perish. In Romans 10:13, yes, everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. From these two verses it sounds like you are saying that whoever and everyone has the ability or capacity to believe in Jesus. Because I don’t see it in the text. I believe you are inserting a presupposition into the text. Romans doesn’t read, Everyone, because everyone has the ability or the capacity, who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. This verse has nothing to do with man’s ability to respond to God’s call, it just tells that whoever does it will be saved. You are reading a presupposition of libertarian freewill into the text. Non-Calvinists make these kinds of implications all the time. The basic reasoning is this: since God calls everyone to believe, then we must all be able to believe because that would be vain of God to do so. That’s the non-Calvinist response, at least what I have encountered.
Heather wrote:The Bible says “Seek me and live (Amos 5:4) … You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13) … Choose this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15).” (And there’s many more “seek/choose” verses not listed here.) CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, God says to seek Him, but He doesn’t mean you actually can seek Him until and unless He causes you to seek Him. And He will only cause the elect to do this, after He gives them new life.”
Roland wrote: True, God calls us to seek Him and choose to serve Him. Yes, you are right, unless God gives a new heart, you will not seek God. We probably have different anthropologies. I believe men by nature are children of wrath as it says in Ephesians. I don’t believe Scripture teaches us that have libertarian freewill and can therefore choose, believe, and respond to God in a spiritually beneficial manner.
Heather wrote: Romans 3:11 talks about the general condition of mankind when left to ourselves, that no one seeks God. This is why God didn’t leave us to ourselves. He wants us to seek Him and find Him. And so He created the nations (Acts 17:27) and put evidence of Himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and speaks to our hearts (Ecc. 3:11) – to lead us to know He’s real so that we can seek Him. CALVINIST TWIST: “‘No one seeks God’ means that no one can seek God, that it’s impossible for man to seek God unless God makes him do it. And He will only cause the elect to do this. No one else can seek God or think about God or even want God.”
Roland wrote: Amen, no one seeks God, absolutely. It is not impossible for men to seek God, we do it all the time but in erroneous ways. Paul tells the men in Athens in Acts 17 they worship the God they do not know. Again, we should seek the Lord, grope, and in hope that we might find Him. But does everyone seek after the true of the Bible? That seems to be your implication. Paul also says, God commands all men to repent. Do you believe that we can obey God’s command to repent without the saving grace of God? Do we repent first, believe, and then we are born again? If I can obey God’s command to repent without His intervention, then I should be able to keep the Ten Commandments.
Heather wrote: (In some cases, Calvinists don’t twist verses; they just flat-out ignore, deny, or defy them.)
Roland wrote: Acts 17:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
The Lord opened Lydia’s heart! In your understanding of Scripture, it should not read that the Lord opened her heart but that Lydia allowed or permitted the Lord to open her heart or Lydia opened her own heart. Do you deny God opening Lydia’s heart? If you do, then you are denying Scripture.
Heather wrote: CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but God meant there are two kinds of sinners, the elected ones and the non-elected ones. And so Romans 5:8 must be only about the elected ones because Jesus wouldn’t die for non-elected people. it would be a waste of His blood.”
Roland wrote: Never heard a Calvinist say that there are two types of sinners. There is no such thing as an elected sinners, sinners are elected to be in Christ, not sin.
All the choose/follow verses don’t tell us why or how a sinner comes to believe in Christ. Non-Calvinist just read into the text. Thanks for reading. I’ll respond to your comments later on.
Heather wrote:
CALVINIST TWIST: “No, God created most people to be sinners so that He could show off His justice by punishing them in hell for sinning.”
Roland wrote: I’ve never heard a Calvinist say God shows off. That’s a very irreverent manner to speak about God. But the truth is all people are created sinners and most of them end up suffering God’s eternal punishment. Yes, God does send sinners to hell and He is glorified in His justice. Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all workers of iniquity. God hates sinners. Do you believe this or do you deny Scripture?
Heather wrote:
Romans 10:17 says that faith comes from hearing the Word of God. CALVINIST TWIST: “That’s right, faith comes from hearing. But (contradictorily), God has to give the elect faith first so that they can understand and respond to the Gospel.”
Roland wrote: Do you believe God has given faith to everyone? If so, then the ones who believe in Jesus just know how to exercise their faith and the others don’t. I believe God grants faith to His elect, that’s what the Bible teaches, Ephesians 2:8 it is the gift of God.
Heather wrote:
Romans 2:4 says that God’s kindness is meant to lead us to repentance. CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but the non-elect can never repent, and so God’s kindness to them is just His way of showing a non-saving type of love to them, before sending them to hell for eternity for being the unbelievers He predestined them to be.”
Roland wrote; you are reading your presuppositions into the text. It sounds as if you are saying that God’s kindness leads all to repentance. Is that what you are saying?
Heather wrote:
The Bible says there are things God never wanted or planned, that people made their own decisions contrary to what God wanted (Hosea 8:4, Isaiah 30:1, Jeremiah 19:4-5, 1 Kings 20:42, Acts 14:16, Matthew 23:37). CALVINIST TWIST: “God preplans and causes and controls everything! Or else He can’t be God.”
Roland wrote: I agree with some of what you are saying. But the Bible does not teach that there are some things out of God’s control. One Reformed theologian put it this way: “If God did not control everything that happens, then He would not be the ultimate interpreter, the ultimate valuer, of everything. The value of some things would then be independent of God, which is to say that they would have no value. Our responsibility then, would be confused by two or more sources of value, possibly by two or more equally ultimate sources. Or we would be really responsible in some areas of life, but not in others. But in Scripture there is one standard, we are to do everything for God’s glory.”
If you believe that there are things that God does not control or does not have authority over them, then this means that you believe you are morally responsible, ultimately, to someone else besides God.
Do you know that Scripture condemns the men who crucified Jesus? Do you also know that their actions can be traced back to God?
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;
Acts 4:27-28 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.
God does predetermine everything, even Jesus’s death by Herod and Pontius Pilate. God determined this before to be done. In your understanding of Scripture God can’t do this because all the men who crucified Jesus have libertarian freewill and God would not “force” anybody to do anything that is contrary to their libertarian freewill.
Heather wrote:
2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish. And 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God desires all men to be saved. CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but He only means He wants all the elect to be saved.” Or “Yes, He ‘desires’ all people to be saved but He has a greater desire than that: To show off His justice by punishing sin so that He can get glory and worship for it. And so He needed sinners to punish, and so He predestined many people to be unrepentant sinners so that He could put them in hell. He still ‘wants’ them to be saved. It makes Him sad to put them in hell. But He wanted glory/worship for punishing sin even more.”
Roland wrote: Peter wrote his letter to Christians, not to non-Christians. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward US, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. The any in this verse is the US, that is the Christians along with Peter. You took that verse out of context. You are saying that the “any” in this verse means everyone, it does not, the “any” are the same as the “us” in this verse.
I think you mentioned in another post that Calvinists confuse will/desire and God. I answered that statement with 1 Timothy 2:4. God does desire that all men be saved. That is God’s desire but it is not His will.
Heather wrote:
Calvinists trade in a clear, plain understanding of Scripture for their own twisted, contradictory version. They are upside-down but think they’re right-side up because they’ve been trained to see it that way. But if they have to add “Yes, but …” to all easily-understood verses, then it’s because they are trying too hard to make the Bible fit into their twisted theology. It would be so much easier and make so much more sense if they ditched their twisted theology and their Calvinist presuppositions/teachers … and just read the Bible in the plain, easily understood, consistent way it was written. Then they wouldn’t have the horrible contradictions and distortions that they have to work so hard to “fix.”
Roland wrote: No, non-Calvinists have to inject their presuppositions of libertarian freewill into verses that show God is effectually sovereign in our salvation. I mentioned Lydia earlier and there are many other verses that teach God’s sovereignty in salvation.
Heather wrote:
I’ve said this before, but … If someone can’t see the damage Calvinism does to God’s Word and God’s character, then they either don’t really understand Calvinism or they don’t really understand God’s Word and character.
Roland wrote: Calvinism does not damage God’s Word or character, if anything, we exalt it. Non-Calvinist are the ones who do it because they elevate man up to God’s level. You guys have built a wall that God is not permitted to cross, libertarian freewill. I really understand Calvinism. It is the non-Calvinist who do not understand it. That’s why Leighton and his followers always have to misrepresent Calvinism because if they teach it how Calvinist teach it, then Leighton will lose his followers, subscribers, etc. If Leighton and his followers showed others how Calvinism is drawn from Scripture then he would lose followers.
Heather (posting again, cuz of your support, but not directly to any more of their round-n-round stuff),
Well done!
There was a YRR guy came on here a year ago and thought we just needed a little help and we would see the error of our non-Calvinist ways. He did not appreciate that I was an ordained, Reformed (denomination) church sent missionary of 30+ years, and former Calvinist.
He said one time (before he slammed the door on his way out shouting “heretics!”) a standard line from Calvinists (about irresistible grace), “When Christ says come, you come!!!”
I mentioned to him the rich young ruler who spoke directly with Christ (who “had compassion on him and loved him”). Christ told him “Come, follow me.” But, nah, he resisted. And the Word records it —-so we will know that Christ’s grace can be resisted! And the Word records it to show that Christ LOVED that man (most Calvinists who are brave enough, will admit that their philosophy teaches that Christ does not love all people). Christ loved him and called him…. but nope.
I mentioned to him that two Gospels record Christ saying….”how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
Christ wanted them to come….but they resisted. H “longed” for it. He “longed for” what He had decreed before time that they NOT do??
Yes, the Calvinist philosophy insists …. but they will not bother/ dare to say this (they ignore or re-write a TON of Scripture—as you showed) …. insists that God ordained that people would resist Him, so that Christ could call them, and they could resist, and Christ could lament that the people resisted.
Now that is one mixed up philosophy! You would never really know what it was that Christ wanted! Does He want what He decreed that you do before time (resist) or does He want you to “Come follow me.”?
Hard to know guys….
And Heather, you are right….what are they even doing here? I was decreed to come to Christ in a non-Calvinist church, only to attend a Calvinist Bible school and become an ordained Calvinist missionary….only to become an ardent Calvinism opponent. Leave me alone! I am only doing what I was decreed to do! Oppose Calvinism!
FOH wrote:
Yes, the Calvinist philosophy insists …. but they will not bother/ dare to say this (they ignore or re-write a TON of Scripture—as you showed)
Roland wrote: Heather did not show that Calvinists rewrite Scripture. She wrote all that herself. When I asked her for examples of Calvinists twisting Scripture, she wrote general comments that she believes Calvinists say.
I gave Heather the example of God opening Lydia’s heart in Acts 16. Under a non-Calvinist understanding of the text, as we believe that God did open her heart, what do the non-Calvinist believe? Did God need Lydia’s permission to open her heart? It is not in the text. If I held to a libertarian freewill position, I would have to deny God’s action in opening Lydia’s heart. So while you accuse Calvinist of not admitting to somethings, I wonder if you do the same.
FOH wrote:
Now that is one mixed up philosophy! You would never really know what it was that Christ wanted! Does He want what He decreed that you do before time (resist) or does He want you to “Come follow me.”?
Roland wrote: Christ wants us to do what is written in His Word. I don’t see the problem with that and Calvinism.
Seriously, I am asking this question in all seriousness. I’m not trying to be argumentative or trying to create some trap. Were you reformed for over 30 years? Did you live those 30 years with all these questions about the Bible and Calvinism? If so, if you were so conflicted, why did you stay for so long? Were you listening Calvinistic preaching while not believing what was preached?
If I’m understanding what you wrote correctly, you are a patient man to bear something for so long without believing it.
Me, I stayed in a non-Calvinist church for about 2 years, once I became Calvinist, I could not tolerate my pastor preaching around verses that teach about God’s sovereignty, election, predestination, etc.
FOH I absolutley agree Heather gave plenty of contradictions clearly within Scripture of how they twist things… And you show very well how they make Jesus to be disingenuous ugh how very horrible!!!! It’s odd that they try/need to defend God, because as a non calvinist i understand God does not need me to defend His honor nor does He need me at all, but rather He allows me to be part of His story.. but of course we are to be on guard against false teachers, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies.. (hmm secretly) and we are to contend earnestly for the faith… which actually means something on our perspective… Also when you genuinely love someone you do defend them, but out of authentic love not out of an irresistible love, because that’s not love but rather a cleverly invented story… if i were a calvinist I think i would find most of Scripture a mandatory set of to do & not to do(works based salvation) (legalism) if I felt there was not libertarian freedom, because it wouldn’t be a guide or a lamp for my path nor as Hebrews 4:12 clearly states.. Wow (living and powerful)… I actually believe it is genuinely alive and can do what it clearly states.. What or who are they trusting?? (rhetorical) it seems trust is key… I’m trusting in a genuinely offered gift not merited nor irresistibly given..
Psalm 18:30 NKJV — As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the LORD is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him.
Hebrews 4:12 NKJV — For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Yes Heather enjoy the sunshine 🌻
FOH writes, “Yes, the Calvinist philosophy insists …. but they will not bother/ dare to say this (they ignore or re-write a TON of Scripture—as you showed) …. insists that God ordained that people would resist Him, so that Christ could call them, and they could resist, and Christ could lament that the people resisted.”
Tell the part that you leave out. Calvinism says that no one is born with faith and that faith can only come through the hearing of the gospel. God ordained this as a consequence of Adam’s sin. That is why Jesus says, “No one can come to me…” People without faith will always resist God and His commandments and Christ when He calls them. FOH has taken faith out of the equation so that he can say, “[Calvinists] insists that God ordained that people would resist Him.” God ordained that people would be born without faith and it is that lack of faith that results in people resisting God. Naturally, FOH says, “Now that is one mixed up philosophy!” That’s what you get when you leave faith out of the equation. FOH is an “ardent Calvinism opponent” because of the issue of faith.
Heather writes, “John 3:16 “that whoever believes in him will not perish …” And Romans 10:13 “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” CALVINIST TWIST: “This doesn’t mean that anyone can believe in Him and be saved, but just that all the believers – the elect – will believe in Him and be saved.”
Calvinists take this to mean that only those who believe in Christ can, and will, be saved. Drawing from Romans 10, Calvinists say that “faith” is required to believe in Christ and call on His name. Faith only comes from hearing the gospel. People are not born with faith and because of this are Totally Depraved – they have no ability to be saved and cannot be saved until they hear the gospel and receive faith. All those who believe in Christ are called “the elect” regardless how one thinks they come to receive faith and believe in Christ.
Then, “The Bible says “Seek me and live (Amos 5:4) … You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13) … Choose this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15).” (And there’s many more “seek/choose” verses not listed here.) CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, God says to seek Him, but He doesn’t mean you actually can seek Him until and unless He causes you to seek Him.”
Calvinists say that no one seeks God, or Christ, until they hear the gospel and receive faith. A person without faith (who is Totally Depraved) considers the gospel to be foolishness and will not seek Christ until he receives faith. Calvinists say that faith is a gift from God given only to His elect. That is one way to explain why all who hear the gospel do not receive faith and do not believe in Christ. If Heather has another explanation, let her bring it forth.
Then, “The Bible says Jesus died for all people, all sins (Romans 5:18, 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 Timothy 4:10, Titus 2:11). CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but Jesus wouldn’t waste His blood on those who are predestined for hell, so Jesus really didn’t die for all people, just all kinds of people, all the elect.”
Following Ephesians 3, we can say that Jesus died for both Jews and gentiles, not necessarily each and every individual. The problem here is that God knew before He created the world those who would be saved and those who would never be saved. So, what purpose was served if Christ died for those who were never going to be saved? It is better to understand the term, “all,” to refer to Jews and gentiles.
Then, ‘Romans 3:11 talks about the general condition of mankind when left to ourselves, that no one seeks God….CALVINIST TWIST: “‘No one seeks God’ means that no one can seek God, that it’s impossible for man to seek God unless God makes him do it. ”
No one seeks God because no one has faith, and no one can have faith until they hear the gospel and receive faith. Romans 3 describes those who are without faith – those who are Totally Depraved.
Then, “The Bible says that we get the Holy Spirit as a result of turning to God in faith. Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized … and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” CALVINIST TWIST: “Oh no, we need the Holy Spirit to make us born again before we can repent and turn to God in faith.”
John 3 tells us that a person cannot see or enter the kingdom of God (i.e., be saved) until he is born again, a work of the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians 1, we read, “in whom you also [trusted], having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,—in whom, having also believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,…” So, we need the Holy Spirit to regenerate us (i.e., born again) so that we can hear the gospel and receive faith and when we exercise faith to believe, we are given the Holy Spirit to live in us and preserve us.
rhutchin
Calvinists take this to mean that only those who believe in Christ can, and will, be saved.
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god determines every impulse in the human brain – and does not permit any alternative impulse.
In this case – the impulse is called “believe” :-]
rhutchin
Calvinists say that no one seeks God
br.d
Unless an impulse called “seek god” is infallibly decreed to irresistibly appear within the person’s brain! :-]
rhutchin: “Calvinists say that no one seeks God”
br.d: “Unless an impulse called “seek god” is infallibly decreed to irresistibly appear within the person’s brain!”
That impulse is called “faith” and it is a gift from God.
rhutchin
That impulse is called “faith” and it is a gift from God.
br.d
Right – but don’t for the the SINFUL/EVIL impulse gift!
And don’t forget the gift of FALSE faith that Calvin’s god gives!!
Calvin says – he gives a -quote SENSE as can be felt, yet without the spirit of adoption.
He -quote ILLUMINES them for a time – and then STRIKES them with greater blindness
That’s a lot of gifts. :-]
Heather writes, “Romans 5:8 says that God demonstrates His love for sinners by sending Jesus to die for us. Romans 3:23 says we are all sinners. Therefore, God sent Jesus to die for all of us. CALVINIST TWIST: “Yes, but God meant there are two kinds of sinners, the elected ones and the non-elected ones. And so Romans 5:8 must be only about the elected ones because Jesus wouldn’t die for non-elected people. it would be a waste of His blood.”
Romans 5:8 says, “But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” So, who are the “we” and “us” to whom Paul refers? It would include Paul and those to whom he is writing. So, that would be believers (the elect). It may be that Christ died for those that were never to be saved, but this verse does not deal with them.
Romans 3:23 says, “for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;” So, who are the “all”? Earlier, Paul had written, “For we previously charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. ” Paul continues in this context, so we read v23 as “for both Jews and Greeks have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;” This is in line with Paul’s purpose in the early chapters of Romans to explain that the Jews are no different than the gentiles in God’s eyes as regards the need for salvation.
So, there are not two types of sinners – both Jews and gentiles are sinners. Perhaps Heather can explain why God would send Christ to die for those whom God has no intention to save.
rhutchin wrote:
So, there are not two types of sinners – both Jews and gentiles are sinners. Perhaps Heather can explain why God would send Christ to die for those whom God has no intention to save.
Great response. One of the things that frustrates me about Leighton and his followers is they will not allow us to use our beliefs, they always have to twist them before they answer. There is no Calvinists that I know of that believes there are two types of sinners, elect and non elect. But they insist that we have to hold these beliefs. Also, Heather could not produce one quote from a Calvinists who has “twisted” Scripture. If anything, Calvinists do the exegetical work, while Leighton and his followers do the analogical work.
“…they will not allow us to use our beliefs…” is an emotive, code-phrase which means “they won’t first accept our worldview and answer assuming our worldview is true”.
“They will not allow us to use our beliefs…” means we won’t let you question-beg and ask that you first show your work before you assume your view is true. I mean, really, could anyone actually possibly stop you from using your beliefs?
“They always have to twist them…” accuses the Calvinist who does not hold his own Reformed teachers/preachers to the standard he holds the non-Reformed. Dr. Flowers plays Calvinists’ own words AT LENGTH, a courtesy none of us are afforded in return.
“There is no Calvinists that I know of that believes…” but that’s not the standard in rational dialogue is it? In order for something to be true on a worldview, the standard is not “someone who adheres to that worldview must explicitly affirm that position”. Logical deduction and induction are valid ways at getting at the truth, are they not?
“Insisting we hold these beliefs”. Nope. We’re either quoting Calvinists or we’re making rational arguments. Dr. Flowers never says anything to the effect of “What Calvinists REALLY believe is..”. He never says anything like this. What he does is make rational arguments leading to deductive or inductive logical conclusions regarding the theological and hermenuetical system of Reformed Theology. After making such an argument, then he claims that these conclusions are rational on Calvinism, even when Calvinists don’t believe them.
In Calvinism, “exegetical” = “systematic harmonization of certain key texts in Scripture”.
Eric: is an emotive, code-phrase which means “they won’t first accept our worldview and answer assuming our worldview is true”.
I wrote: That’s not what I wrote. Do you see how Leighton and his followers always respond with statements or assumptions that are not our own? I am not saying that you must accept our worldview. I am saying that Leighton and his followers always misrepresent our views. That’s what I’m saying.
Eric: means we won’t let you question-beg and ask that you first show your work before you assume your view is true. I mean, really, could anyone actually possibly stop you from using your beliefs?
I wrote: Show me where I am question-begging. No, you can’t actually possible stop from me using my own beliefs. But, when Calvinists interact with Leighton and his followers, you tell us what Calvinism teaches. We believe God has determined all things, He uses means, at times He permits things, and He is not the author of evil. Leighton and his followers response: “Oh, God has decreed everything, He just put a floppy disk into a computer, you’re just a program, you don’t a choice, etc…” That’s what I mean. Rarely does Leighton or any of his followers engage us directly in what we are saying.
Another thing that annoys me is Leighton and his followers constant appeals to logical fallacies. Instead of answering something, Leighton will appeal to logical fallacies. When Leighton and his followers are presented with a simple two option choice, such as God has perfect full knowledge or He doesn’t, this is a false dilemma or dichotomy. He does this beaus he doesn’t have an answer or he doesn’t want to answer.
I watched Leighton’s video, Why James White is Unbelievable, last night. Most of his answers to James were all about logical fallacies. James says Leighton’s actions are cowardice because Leighton doesn’t take a firm stand on some issues. In the video Leighton at one point says he hold’s Boethius’s views regarding God’s knowledge, then within minutes, points to middle knowledge as an argument against God’s intentions in Genesis 50. Which one is it Boethius or Molina?
Eric: Dr. Flowers plays Calvinists’ own words AT LENGTH, a courtesy none of us are afforded in return.
I wrote: Leighton is the king of cut and paste videos of Calvinists. He does it all the time, only playing portions of John Piper, James White, RC Sproul, etc. Then James White does it when Leighton said God chooses sinners like humans choose choice meat and Leighton goes off the rails.
Eric: but that’s not the standard in rational dialogue is it? In order for something to be true on a worldview, the standard is not “someone who adheres to that worldview must explicitly affirm that position”. Logical deduction and induction are valid ways at getting at the truth, are they not?
I wrote: Again, you entirely missed the point of my statement. I was not making an argument for whether Calvinism is a true worldview or not. Yes, logical deduction and induction are valid ways at getting at truth. I agree. This is an example of how Leighton and his followers twist our own beliefs and doctrines. We do not believe there are elect and non elect sinners but again, Leighton and his followers know what we teach better than we know. so according to them we must believe in elect and non elect sinners.
Eric: Nope. We’re either quoting Calvinists or we’re making rational arguments. Dr. Flowers never says anything to the effect of “What Calvinists REALLY believe is..”. He never says anything like this.
I wrote: Sorry, but he does that all the time. That is what Leighton and his followers are all about… What Calvinists REALLY believe is…! Leighton’s whole life and ministry exists to teach what Calvinists really believe. Here’s one example in his debate with James White. He tells James in the video that Calvinists believe that men are judicially hardened. James tells him we born with a heart of stone as Scripture teaches us. But Leighton insists that Calvinists believe men are born judicially hardened.
Eric: What he does is make rational arguments leading to deductive or inductive logical conclusions regarding the theological and hermenuetical system of Reformed Theology.
I wrote: No he doesn’t. Here’s what Leighton does. He appeals to a logical fallacy, or he gives an analogy or takes our words, inserts them into an argument he has made, then comes to a logical and rational conclusion that Calvinism is false. That’s his method. In his video, Why James White is Unbelievable, he does this very thing. Leigthon’s argument is God determined everything, so man cannot make choices.
However, we can point to Scripture that shows us both God’s determinations and man’s actions in those determinations. Acts 4:27-28 “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.
The people who crucified Jesus chose to do those things yet God had determined them. But according Leighton, Calvinists REALLY believe we are robots. That is not what Scripture teaches us, that’s why Calvinists do exegetical work, Leighton does analogical work.
Eric: In Calvinism, “exegetical” = “systematic harmonization of certain key texts in Scripture”.
I wrote: You should watch James White presentation of Romans 9 in his debate with Leighton. James exegetes the text while Leighton appeals to verses outside of Romans 9 to create a system which he then pressed into Romans 9. James even asked Leighton if the way Leighton did his presentation is proper exegesis to show doctrines such as the Trinity. Leighton response is “no.” Leighton knew what he did was wrong exegesis. Leighton did not exegete Romans 9 he presented a variety of verses to show what the Bible really teaches about Romans 9.
Roland
“I am saying that Leighton and his followers always misrepresent our views. That’s what I’m saying.”
Then you’re delusional or lying.
“Do you see how Leighton and his followers always respond with statements or assumptions that are not our own?”
No. I see us disagreeing. I see us making counter-arguments. I see us painstakingly representing Reformed theologians in their own words.
“But, when Calvinists interact with Leighton and his followers, you tell us what Calvinism teaches.”
Yes, by quoting Calvin and other Reformed theologians.
“Rarely does Leighton or any of his followers engage us directly in what we are saying.”
You’re living in a reality of your own making, my friend.
“Another thing that annoys me is Leighton and his followers constant appeals to logical fallacies. Instead of answering something, Leighton will appeal to logical fallacies.”
You’re annoyed we’re using reason?
” James says Leighton’s actions are cowardice because Leighton doesn’t take a firm stand on some issues.”
This is amazing. So amazing. You’re so blinded by your bias that non-Cals using reason “annoys” you but you see no problem with White attributing emotions to his opponents and calling them “cowardly”. You actually believe White calling something “cowardly” is an argument but when Dr. Flowers makes actual arguments you go “muh feels”.
“Leighton is the king of cut and paste videos of Calvinists.”
You’re lying.
“Then James White does it when Leighton said God chooses sinners like humans choose choice meat and Leighton goes off the rails.”
If you don’t understand the difference between Dr. Flowers either play 10-20min sections (or the entire hour long sermon/teaching) and White playing 15 seconds of a video he admitted to not watching the context of…you’re just proving my point.
“Leighton’s whole life and ministry exists to teach what Calvinists really believe.”
Liar.
“Here’s what Leighton does. He appeals to a logical fallacy…”
I…I thought you just logical deductions and inductions are valid ways at getting at the truth? Which is it, is reason valid or not? Like…I’m not sure anymore…but you do realize that if your argument uses a logical fallacy then the argument is invalid or untrue…right?
“James exegetes the text while Leighton appeals to verses outside of Romans 9 to create a system which he then pressed into Romans 9”
Have you ever read a Bible commentary?
Thanks Eric,
1. Roland burst back onto the scene with these statements:
—I doubt Leighton was ever a Calvinist who understood what the Bible says about God’s nature, His interaction with creation, anthropology, soteriology, HIs providence, His decree, His holiness, etc. (That is the old “you dont know Calvinism” approach).
—I’ve really come to believe that Leighton is just spiritually gaslighting Calvinists.
—I think Leighton gets a kick out of aggravating Calvinists with his overt misrepresentations of Calvinistic doctrine and practice.
— Leighton’s one string banjo sure has one high note that keeps ringing in my ear!
None of that adds to the conversation and is typically harsh. I dont see Leighton do that in the dozens of hours I have watched.
2. To prove his point, Roland quotes this from the article:
“But, to be honest, I cannot help wonder how my Calvinistic brother’s expressions of frustration toward the state of the world are warranted. Given their belief that “God has sovereignly and unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass for the praise of His own glory,” (WCF III.1)”
This is the author asking how it works that Calvinists hold to that position and then they are in any way frustrated at what God has chosen to bring about for His glory. That is not rocket science. That is a legitimate question.
3. I discovered the problem!! The next thing that Roland says explains it all!!
“Leighton’s implication is that Calvinists should just be at peace with the state of the world. Leighton should know that as Calvinists God’s Word is “the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule” for us. Does God’s Word command us to accept things as they are such as abortion? Leighton is at least implying, if not directly, stating that because we believe God “works all things according to the counsel of His own will,” we should accept evils such as abortion.”
3.A. That is the point!!!! The Word does NOT command us to accept these evil things—-so why endorse a statement that says that God brought them about?
3.B. Here is where Roland’s problem is….He EQUATES the WCF (man made) statement
“God has sovereignly and unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass for the praise of His own glory ”
with the biblical statement …
“works all things according to the counsel of His own will”
Aha!! I found Roland’s problem!!!
Those are not the same statement!
We (non-Calvinists) have the biblical statement also (we just dont make it say what the WCF says). In fact…. it doesnt say that!
You must go outside of the Scriptures to get a statement like the WCF one that Calvinists endorse and quote!
Eric, thanks for the reply.
“Then you’re delusional or lying.”
I’m not the only Calvinist on this website that has come to the conclusion that Leighton misrepresents Calvinism.
“No. I see us disagreeing. I see us making counter-arguments. I see us painstakingly representing Reformed theologians in their own words.”
Yes, we disagree but I don’t always get countner-arguments from non-calvinists. Sometimes I get called names. I disagree that you guys “painstakingly representing Reformed theologians in their own words.” I admit, you guys do use Calvinist quotes, videos, and soundbites but sometimes they are taking out of context.
“Yes, by quoting Calvin and other Reformed theologians.”
Again, always in a bad light. I’ve had non-Calvinists on this website admit that it is not their responsibility to paint Calvinism in a good light. In other words, its ok to misrepresent.
Are you a Trinitarian? Do you believe it is a misrepresentation to say that Trinitarians worship three gods? Because that’s what non-Calvinists do all the time. “God has determined everything, therefore humans are only robots.”
“You’re annoyed we’re using reason?”
No, I’m annoyed that Leighton uses logical fallacies to avoid answering questions. I was having a discussion with someone else on this site. I asked them these questions: Does God love the world (John 3:16) Yes or no, they answered this one YES. Does God hate all workers of iniquity Psalm 5:5? Yes or no they answered if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. He did not answer yes or no. Is the world of made up of sinners, workers of iniquity? Yes or no, Yes. How can God love a world made up of sinners? His answer, “that’s false presumption. I can’t answer a question with a false presumption.” He avoided the question by appealing to a logical fallacy in the question I asked him and he did not show me my false presumption. That’s what I’m talking about.
“You’re lying.”
How? I’ve watched at least 20 of Leighton’s videos, he does it all the time.
“Liar.”
Again, show me where I’m lying. There are a few things I try to avoid when I have discussions with people who disagree with me. One, I avoid name calling. Two, I try to avoid intentional misrepresentations of their positions. I do ask questions for clarity. I try to understand opposing positions. It’s a good intellectual exercise to read opposing views.
“Have you ever read a Bible commentary?”
Plenty, I have over 100 bible commentaries in my personal library. I even have non-reformed commentators! Thanks for reading.
Eric,
This is a typical Calvinist ploy…. to pull a phrase out of context, make it say more than it does….and then establish doctrine from it.
Roland uses the Ps 5:5 ply. My comments below in brackets.
Listen to my words, Lord, [This the psalmist’s prayer and understanding of God]
consider my lament.
2 Hear my cry for help,
my King and my God,
for to you I pray.
3 In the morning, Lord, you hear my voice;
in the morning I lay my requests before you
and wait expectantly.
4 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; [and yet David was a “man after God’s own heart….so this is not a doctrinal statement]
with you, evil people are not welcome.[Ever? or while they are practicing evil?]
5 The arrogant cannot stand
in your presence.
You hate all who do wrong; [That would include everyone—God hates everyone— if taken for the what Calvinist is saying]
6 you destroy those who tell lies. [Tell a lie—get destroyed on the spot!!!]
The bloodthirsty and deceitful
you, Lord, detest.
7 But I, by your great love,
can come into your house; [But I get to come in…. cuz I did none of the above. Nah…. Cuz God loves]
in reverence I bow down
toward your holy temple.
——
Way too many Calvinistic miles have been paved by a forced understanding of a partial verse in a psalm!!
Nothing new here. Same old gotcha phrases and 40 filter verses.
When I was a young guy and got suckered in….you know the one that got me? “Dead men dont make choices!”
That’s just silly tactics. Jesus calls the prodigal son dead twice and he still came to his sense —and went to the Father—- while the father did nothing!
FOH thanks for replying, at least to Eric. But hopefully you can reply to my questions below, thanks.
FOH
This is a typical Calvinist ploy…. to pull a phrase out of context, make it say more than it does….and then establish doctrine from it
I wrote: How did I do this? Does the portion of the verse I used change in any way when in its context?
FOH
Way too many Calvinistic miles have been paved by a forced understanding of a partial verse in a psalm!!
I wrote: How am I using this verse to prove Calvinism?
FOH
That’s just silly tactics. Jesus calls the prodigal son dead twice and he still came to his sense —and went to the Father—- while the father did nothing!
I wrote: Are you saying that words can have more than one meaning?
Thanks for reading.
Roland
Are you saying that words can have more than one meaning?
br.d
In the Calvinist use of language – this is especially the case.
Take “unconditional” election for example.
In Calvinism election is both “conditional” and “unconditional”.
1) Election is “conditioned” upon the infallible decree
2) Election is NOT “conditioned” upon anything having to do with man
Not only is this the case with election in Calvinism – but it is the case with “Whatsoever comes to pass”.
Because “Whatsoever comes to pass” is establishes solely and exclusively by infallible decrees before the existence of creation.
Therefore all sin and evil are likewise “conditioned” upon the infallible decree – and thus NOT conditioned upon anything having to do with man.
Thanks for the reply, br.d
br.d
In the Calvinist use of language – this is especially the case.
Take “unconditional” election for example.
In Calvinism election is both “conditional” and “unconditional”.
I wrote: Would you say that this is the case with most use of language in Calvinism? If so, do you believe we as Calvinist are aware of this, ignore this, or refute it?
I’m curious to know is this is how you understand Calvinism or how you have heard it taught? Thanks for reading.
Roland
Would you say that this is the case with most use of language in Calvinism?
br.d
I would say that it is a definite characteristic of Calvinist language.
Calvinism is predicated on Universal Divine Causal Determinism
Exhaustive Determinism – is a radical belief system – and is NON-NORMATIVE.
This presents a psychological problem
The Calvinist is going to have an urgency to make a NON-NORMATIVE belief system APPEAR NORMATIVE.
And that is going to be observable in Calvinism’s language patterns
If you examine Calvinist language from a LOGICAL perspective – you will discover there are many concepts within Calvinism thinking that are both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
Now the technical definition of a contradiction:
A contradiction occurs when something resolves to being both TRUE and FALSE at the same time – and in the same SENSE.
When you discover, there are concepts in Calvinism that are TRUE and FALSE at the same time – then in order to avoid contradiction – those terms must be a different SENSE. And this is why we see terms in Calvinism that have different meanings.
Additionally – the technical definition of an equivocation is as follows:
EQUIVOCATION:
In logic equivocation occurs when the same term carries different senses.
And then we have AMBIGUOUS language in Calvinism which is also problematic.
This is common with advertisement language designed to hide an aspect of the product they don’t want you to see.
For example – Calvinism is advertised as “Doctrines of Grace”
Here the term “Grace” becomes equivocal – because the doctrine contains a divine potter who creates/designs the majority of the human race for eternal torment in the lake of fire. So if we label that a “Doctrine of Grace” then the word “Grace” equates to creating/designing people for eternal torment in the lake of fire. And we now have an altered meaning for the word “Grace”
br.d
For example – Calvinism is advertised as “Doctrines of Grace”
Here the term “Grace” becomes equivocal – because the doctrine contains a divine potter who creates/designs the majority of the human race for eternal torment in the lake of fire. So if we label that a “Doctrine of Grace” then the word “Grace” equates to creating/designing people for eternal torment in the lake of fire. And we now have an altered meaning for the word “Grace”
I wrote: That’s a misrepresentation of the doctrines of grace because that is not what Calvinists teach. You are giving a false account of what Calvinists believe and teach. Leighton and most people on here do it all the time. As one poster wrote to me, “It is not my responsibility to present Calvinism in a good light. ” That’s a basic Christian duty to be true.
br.d
I would say that it is a definite characteristic of Calvinist language.
I wrote: How many Reformed works have you read? Because you were to read them you would notice that we do not speak, write, or teach the way you claim we do. That’s why Calvinists get so frustrated with noncalvinists because most of them just blabber about how unreasonable and illogical Calvinism is. You do it all the time just like one of your posts earlier regarding “CONDITION” and “UNCONDITIONAL.” Quote me a prominent Calvinists who speaks like this. You can’t because we don’t, therefore you are misrepresenting us.
br.d
Calvinism is predicated on Universal Divine Causal Determinism
Exhaustive Determinism – is a radical belief system – and is NON-NORMATIVE.
I wrote: The God of Scripture presents Himself in such a manner. When I show you a verse that shows how God controls all things you immediately resort to some logical fallacy. Show me a verse that says men have libertarian freewill? You can’t because there is no such verses. That’s why non-Calvinists always begin with appeals to emotion. They love the examples of God causing rape, abortion, child abuse, etc. They accuse Calvinists of making God the author of evil when we believe Scripture teaches otherwise.
br.d
If you examine Calvinist language from a LOGICAL perspective – you will discover there are many concepts within Calvinism thinking that are both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
I wrote: According to you. Again, show me a quote where a prominent Calvinists does this. You can’t but because you hate Calvinism so much your animus will continue to drive further and further into misrepresentations.
br.d
When you discover, there are concepts in Calvinism that are TRUE and FALSE at the same time – then in order to avoid contradiction – those terms must be a different SENSE. And this is why we see terms in Calvinism that have different meanings.
I wrote: I’ll be waiting on that quote of Calvinists saying something is true and false at the same time in a different sense. Until then you believe this because you don’t want to believe the truth that God is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty on earth and heaven. You deny God’s Word.
Roland
That’s a misrepresentation of the doctrines of grace because that is not what Calvinists teach.
br.d
Cmon Roland – you should know better than that!
1) With the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 – we have a divine potter who creates vessels of honor and creates vessels of wrath fit for destruction.
2) And John Calvin is very clear where he states:
-quote
“They are not found but MADE for destruction”
“They are DOOMED from the womb”
Perhaps you have a Calvinist teachers today who don’t dare to teach the WHOLE TRUTH about the doctrine.
But that doesn’t mean I misrepresent it.
br.d
Cmon Roland – you should know better than that!
1) With the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 – we have a divine potter who creates vessels of honor and creates vessels of wrath fit for destruction.
I wrote: That’s right just as the text says, Romans 9:21. Take note Calvinists don’t run from God’s truths, we embrace them. If God sees fit to make vessels for destruction and some for honor, then He’s the potter, there is no unrighteousness with God. Calvinists don’t preach to tickle non-believers ears, non-Calvinists do. A non-Calvinists will explain these truths away with all their heart. They prefer the honor of men than the honor of God. Calvinists are faithful to the text of Scripture, that’s why we appeal to Scripture to prove God’s sovereignty, not analogies, not logic, not reason, not psychology, etc.
Charles Spurgeon wrote, “Men will allow God to be everywhere except on His throne. There is no doctrine more hated by worldlings.”
br.d
Cmon Roland – you should know better than that!
1) With the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 – we have a divine potter who creates vessels of honor and creates vessels of wrath fit for destruction.
Roland
That’s right just as the text says,
br.d
Well then – I’m not misrepresenting the doctrine!
In Calvinism – “Doctrines of Grace” entails – a divine potter who designs/creates the majority of the human race for eternal torment in the lake if fire. Therefore the word “Grace” entails designing/creating the majority of the human race for eternal torment.
Now you remember how I was telling you that Exhaustive Determinism is not a NON-NORMATIVE belief system?
Now you can see how the word “Grace” in Calvinism has implications that are NON-NORMATIVE for the word “Grace”.
“Doctrines of Grace” – in Calvinism – is misleading language.
br.d
Now you can see how the word “Grace” in Calvinism has implications that are NON-NORMATIVE for the word “Grace”.
“Doctrines of Grace” – in Calvinism – is misleading language
I wrote: This just shows your misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace. They are synonymous with TULIP. If you look at the acronym there is not a heading relating to the reprobate. Please, don’t mistake total depravity for reprobation because God saves some out of total depravity. The doctrines of grace refer to the saving grace of God for His elect. Calvinist do not use grace and reprobation interchangeably, you seem to think we do. Reprobation is part of Reformed theology but to associate reprobation with the doctrines of grace is not proper. But then you persist in believing that Calvinist language is contradictory and double-minded.
Can you see how you are pressing two diametrically opposed ideas together? Grace and reprobation. That’s like being a non-Chrisian and saying, “You see Christianity does not save people, there is no salvation because there is eternal hell.” That’s what you sound like.
Roland
br.d
Now you can see how the word “Grace” in Calvinism has implications that are NON-NORMATIVE for the word “Grace”.
“Doctrines of Grace” – in Calvinism – is misleading language
Roland
This just shows your misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace. They are synonymous with TULIP.
br.d
Roland – I’ll put it to you in syllogism:
1) “Doctrines of Grace” serves as an advertising phrase to describe Calvinist doctrine.
2) The doctrine – among other things – contains the proposition that the majority of humans are created/designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire
CONCLUSION:
“Doctrines of Grace” serves as an advertising phrase which among other things contains the proposition that the majority of humans are created/designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
Now according to the rules of syllogism – in order to reject the conclusion you must reject one of the premises.
Which one of the premises to you reject?
br.d:
Now according to the rules of syllogism – in order to reject the conclusion you must reject one of the premises.
Which one of the premises to you reject?
Me: I reject both. I have never heard a Calvinist say that the doctrines of grace serve as an advertising phrase. Also, the doctrines of grace or TULIP do not contain the proposition that the majority of humans are created/designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
Allow me to explain something about us: TULIP is synonymous with the doctrines of grace. But neither is synonymous with Calvinism even though informally it is. Calvinism is more in line with the phrase Reformed Theology. But sometimes Calvinism does refer to TULIP or Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology deals with broader doctrines while Calvinism is narrower in scope. Most of the confusion is with those outside of Calvinism not within. When I talk with a fellow Calvinist, we know exactly what we are saying regarding TULIP, the doctrines of grace, Calvinism, Reformed Theology.
Roland
I reject both.
br.d
Roland – how can you reject premise (2) after you just got done saying YES to it – and asserting it is in the bible?
How in the world do you consider that rational??
Roland
I have never heard a Calvinist say that the doctrines of grace serve as an advertising phrase.
br.d
I did not say that Calvinist “say” it serves as an advertising phrase.
I said it “SERVES” as an advertising phrase
And it clearly does – because John John F. MacArthur for example – clearly uses it that way.
Roland – I don’t think I can take you seriously any more.
I think in rational terms – and I don’t think your mind works that way.
br.d
Roland – how can you reject premise (2) after you just got done saying YES to it – and asserting it is in the bible?
How in the world do you consider that rational??
Me: I think you’re confused. I was answering your questions regarding the doctrines of grace. What do you think I was answering?
br.d
Roland – I don’t think I can take you seriously any more.
I think in rational terms – and I don’t think your mind works that way.
Me: What did I say that was irrational? You asked me about doctrines of grace, advertising, and reprobation. I said I reject both of this premises. What are you referring to? We’re off track somewhere.
You keep contradicting yourself.
And then when I let you know you’ve contradicted yourself – you claim to not connect the dots
At this point – I think its all a tap dance routine.
Why don’t you call it a day – get some rest.
There’s no sense in pursuing something that is useless.
br.d
You keep contradicting yourself.
And then when I let you know you’ve contradicted yourself – you claim to not connect the dots
At this point – I think its all a tap dance routine.
Why don’t you call it a day – get some rest.
There’s no sense in pursuing something that is useless.
Me: I agree. I am going to sound like I’m contradicting myself at least to you. In my mind, and the minds of other Calvinists, I’m making perfect sense from a Calvinistic interpretation of the Scriptures. We are both coming from two different worldview, at least I suspect. You are looking for a reasonable defense of my unreasonable Calvinism. That’s how I used to see Calvinism, it did not make sense, it was not reasonable, it was not logical. I think I get where you are coming from. I’m ok with leaving it at this. If you want to walk away from the discussion with the conclusion that you are right, Calvinism is double-minded, it’s unreasonable, it’s fallacious, etc. I’m ok with that. I’m not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine. It’s been a pleasure. If you have any more questions I’m here to answer from a Calvinist perspective, so don’t expect logic, reason, common sense, etc. I appeal to Scripture for answers. Calvinists hold to the belief that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. And theology is the queen of all sciences. Blessings, thanks for reading. If you reply soon, you might get a delayed response, sorry.
Here is a parable with a question:
There once was a cereal company
And the cereal they made – was mashed corn – with a very thick coating of sugar sprayed all over it
The company represented the cereal as a health food
A news organization did a story on the cereal and said it did not qualify as a health food
The cereal company claimed the news organization was misrepresenting the cereal – because the news organization did not represent it as a health food.
Is the cereal companies claim a valid claim?
br.d
The cereal company claimed the news organization was misrepresenting the cereal – because the news organization did not represent it as a health food.
Is the cereal companies claim a valid claim?
I wrote:
No because the cereal company’s claim that their cereal is a health food is false. Unless, in your parable, cereal made with mashed corn and heavily coated in sugar is a health food.
What’s the point you’re trying to make?
Yes – but isn’t it true – that the cereal company’s representation and the news organization’s representation are different?
yes
Ok
So we have the representation of the cereal company
And we have the representation of the news organization
And the cereal company observes the difference
And as far as the cereal company is concerned – any representation that is different from theirs is a “Misrepresentation”
How do you resolve this issue?
br.d
How do you resolve this issue?
Me:
You have to examine each claim for its veracity. In the parable you gave it is obvious that the cereal company’s claim is false. Regarding my claim that Calvinism is biblical, it is true. You say it is false.
Here’s the wall we hit: We are interpreting the Bible from two different worldviews, paradigms. My worldview is that God is sovereign and your worldview is that God is not sovereign or that He does not exercise HIs sovereignty in the world as the Calvinist claims.
The problem that is also present is that I present Bible verses to show that God is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty and you reject them.
I really do not have any way to “prove” my claim beyond presenting Bible verses as proof. You present your view with philosophy, logic, reason, rationality, etc. So, under my standard if the Bible says it, I believe it, as long as we not violating some hermeneutical principle or many other reasons. Under your standard if what I say, or any other Calvinists, does conform as truth under philosophy, logic, reason, rationality, etc. then it is not true, it must be rejected as not Biblical.
I used to believe this: if it does not make sense, i.e., it is not reasonable, rational, violate some philosophical norm, it is not biblical. I no longer hold that as my standard. I used to reject Calvinism on the standard that God has given man libertarian freewill, without LFW, we really don’t make a choice, it’s not real, it’s not love, etc. I heard it all. It is a one dimensional approach to God and His interactions with creation. I always had doubts about it but I would reaffirm my standard with going to back to my reasoning. I believe there are many places in the Bible that show God is sovereign, He exercises His sovereignty, and man does not have libertarian freewill.
We are at a huge wall. Our paradigms are heading towards a head on collision. I could be wrong in my assessment. Thanks for reading.
Roland
You have to examine each claim for its veracity. In the parable you gave it is obvious that the cereal company’s claim is false.
br.d
Ok but what is your argument that shows the cereal company’s claim is false?
Roland
My worldview is that God is sovereign and your worldview is that God is not sovereign
br.d
And who gives you the authority to misrepresent me?
Do you know what Jesus calls it – when someone commits the very act they accuse others of? :-]
Roland: “My worldview is that God is sovereign and your worldview is that God is not sovereign…”
br.d: “And who gives you the authority to misrepresent me?”
How did Roland misrepresent you? Shouldn’t you be able to show us how Roland misrepresented you before you demand anything from him?
Roland
My worldview is that God is sovereign and your worldview is that God is not sovereign…”
br.d
And who gives you the authority to misrepresent me?”
rhutchin
How did Roland misrepresent you?
br.d
Please provide a quote from me stating “God is not sovereign”
Or – If your going to try to show that LOGICALLY – which Roland rejects doing – then you’ll have to prove that the ONLY definition of “sovereign” is the Calvinist definition.
And then you’ll have to show how it is that only one small portion of Christianity (aka Calvinism) is the only part of Christianity which has the correct definition.
Good luck with that! :-]
Hey d w, I hope its ok if I chime in, as I saw my name mentioned in your post.
d w
Or – If you’re going to try to show that LOGICALLY – which Roland rejects doing – then you’ll have to prove that the ONLY definition of “sovereign” is the Calvinist definition.
Roland
I don’t reject logic in general. I reject logic in the sense that it is not the ultimate authority for me as a Christian. I believe the ultimate authority for the Christian is God’s Word. I know that is saying much as many branches claim it but we have so many different and competing claims about the Bible. I hope that clears my understanding of Christianity and logic.
Here’s why I reject logic as the ultimate authority. I can write this syllogism
God is not a man,
Jesus is a man,
Therefore, Jesus is not God.
Premise one and two are both true, so my conclusion should be true. But it is not as Christians believe Jesus is God and man. The problem with logic is that in order to have logical conclusions we need true premises, a proper syllogism, and categories that comprise our premises. The problem between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is that we have huge disagreements on categories. So, I cannot make a logical argument, a syllogism, with a non-Calvinist because they reject our categories. That’s my problem with logic.
d w
And then you’ll have to show how it is that only one small portion of Christianity (aka Calvinism) is the only part of Christianity which has the correct definition
roland
See above paragraph, that’s the biggest problem between Calvinists and non-calvinists at least on this website. Defining sovereignty is easy. How God exercises His sovereignty is another disagreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinist. An example, non-Calvinist, not all, will say that God exercised His sovereignty by giving man libertarian freewill. Calvinists reject that. Calvinists believe that God exercises His sovereignty in and with His creation. Generally, non-Calvinists reject that. Thanks for reading.
Roland
I don’t reject logic
br.d
Well that’s good – you would soon be in an insane asylum if you did :-]
Roland
in general. I reject logic in the sense that it is not the ultimate authority for me as a Christian.
br.d
Why can’t you speak the TRUTH Roland?
You reject applying LOGIC to your belief system.
You reject allowing for any LOGIC that would result in a conclusion that does not fit in your belief system
So if your belief system contained a married bachelor – you reject LOGIC in order to retain the married bachelor
Roland
I believe the ultimate authority for the Christian is God’s Word.
br.d
Your not telling the WHOLE TRUTH again.
You have raised Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation up onto a pedestal and make it canon
That is why – for you – examining Calvinism under the lens of LOGIC – is the equivalent of examining scripture
Roland
I know that is saying much as many branches claim it but we have so many different and competing claims about the Bible. I hope that clears my understanding of Christianity and logic.
br.d
I already know your situation.
Any LOGIC that leads to a conclusion that doesn’t fit with the belief system is rejected.
Roland
Here’s why I reject logic as the ultimate authority. I can write this syllogism
God is not a man,
Jesus is a man,
Therefore, Jesus is not God.
br.d
That is totally funny Roland!
That syllogism says nothing about LOGIC! :-]
A syllogism must have exactly 3 terms
Your terms are: God, man, Jesus
Additionally – your 2nd premise is FALSE
Jesus is not just “a man”
Jesus is: Fully man and fully God.
Roland
The problem between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is that we have huge disagreements on categories. So, I cannot make a logical argument, a syllogism, with a non-Calvinist because they reject our categories. That’s my problem with logic.
br.d
The problem here is not with LOGIC
What you are revealing here – is called Calvinism’s CLOSED SYSTEM of logic.
If your belief system requires married bachelors – and you make that your category – then you reject any LOGIC that shows that category to be fallacious.
Roland
Non-Calvinist will say that God exercised His sovereignty by giving man libertarian freewill. Calvinists reject that.
br.d
Actually – Calvinists don’t REALLY reject Libertarian Free will.
They only tell themselves they reject it.
Like a biological man convincing himself that he is a woman
And I can easily show you through LOGIC how that is TRUE
But that would upset your belief system – and we would be up against that wall again.
br.d
And I can easily show you through LOGIC how that is TRUE
But that would upset your belief system – and we would be up against that wall again.
roland
When did I ever write that Calvinism is equal to God’s Word? When did I ever say that I will not subject Calvinism to logic?
I’ve never written that. If I have, then I’ll make it clear that as a Calvinist I do not believe Calvinism is equal to God’s Word.
br.d
Additionally – your 2nd premise is FALSE
Jesus is not just “a man”
roland
My second premise is false. Jesus is not a man? The text I cited below doesn’t says the Man-God Christ Jesus. It says Man Christ Jesus. Are you reading this into the text that Jesus is the God-Man? Wait, are you doing the same thing Calvinists do all the time? Are you reading something into the text that is not there? Are you imposing the belief that Jesus is not a man onto the text?
1 Timothy 2:5-6
5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,
Wait, are saying that Pilate did not see a man when Jesus came out before the crowd? If Pilate did not see a man, what did he see?
John 19:5
5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold the Man!”
br.d
What you are revealing here – is called Calvinism’s CLOSED SYSTEM of logic.
roland
Are you saying that every system is open? Are you saying that if I take any system with truth claims that in order for that system to be valid it needs to be open?
Reason is contrary to your thinking. Every system, at least its proponents, will claim it is a closed system by the terms they use within their system. I don’t understand how you can say that systems cannot be closed. At least that is the implication.
br.d
Actually – Calvinists don’t REALLY reject Libertarian Free will.
They only tell themselves they reject it.
Like a biological man convincing himself that he is a woman
roland
The common tactic I find on this website and throughout Dr. Flowers’ article and videos: non-calvinists REALLY KNOW what Calvinists believe. In order words, Calvinists are delusional.
br.d
And I can easily show you through LOGIC how that is TRUE
But that would upset your belief system – and we would be up against that wall again
roland
I don’t doubt you can easily show me through LOGIC how TRUE that is. Your second statement is true in some sense. We will be up against that wall again but it won’t be because my belief system is upset.
I’m sure you can disprove Calvinism by logic. I don’t doubt it. I agree.
Roland
roland
When did I ever write that Calvinism is equal to God’s Word? When did I ever say that I will not subject Calvinism to logic?
br.d
I explained that for you
You never answered my question about how old you are – or what year you are in school.
Here it is again
This time THINK it through
You made Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation canon – when you declared – subjecting it to LOGIC – would be subjecting scripture to LOGIC.
Therefore you raised Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation onto a pedestal and made it canon.
br.d
Additionally – your 2nd premise is FALSE
Jesus is not just “a man”
Roland
My second premise is false. Jesus is not a man?
br.d
Roland – if you are an adult Christian – then know full well that Jesus is “Fully God and Fully man”
Roland paraphrased
Dr. Flowers says things about Calvinism that Calvinists do not say
br.d
What you are revealing here – is called Calvinism’s CLOSED SYSTEM of logic.
Roland
Are you saying that every system is open?
br.d
A CLOSES SYSTEM of logic occurs when social group has its own unique FORM of thinking – which they claim is logical.
Actually – Calvinists don’t REALLY reject Libertarian Free will.
They only tell themselves they reject it.
Like a biological man convincing himself that he is a woman
Roland
The common tactic I find on this website and throughout Dr. Flowers’ article and videos: non-calvinists REALLY KNOW what Calvinists believe. In order words, Calvinists are delusional.
br.d
Now who is misrepresenting???
Did I say “delusional” or did I say DOUBLE-MINDED??
You charge non-Calvinists with misrepresenting Calvinists while you misrepresent non-Calvinists.
What does Jesus call a person who accuses someone of the very things they do?
But I’m sure you will conveniently ignore that question. :-]
br.d
And I can easily show you through LOGIC how that is TRUE
But that would upset your belief system – and we would be up against that wall again
Roland
We will be up against that wall again but it won’t be because my belief system is upset.
br.d
Oh Really????
Aren’t you going to raise Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation up onto a pedestal again and make it canon- by saying applying LOGIC to it would be applying LOGIC to scripture? :-]
Roland
I’m sure you can disprove Calvinism by logic. I don’t doubt it. I agree.
br.d
I guess that means – you aren’t interested in finding out why Calvinists don’t REALLY reject Libertarian Freedom – while telling themselves they do. :-]
Last one for the day as I will not have access to my computer.
br.d
I explained that for you
You never answered my question about how old you are – or what year you are in school.
roland
I won’t tell you my age but I’ve been a Christian for over twenty years, so I’m older than a teenager and at least in my twenties.
br.d
You made Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation canon – when you declared – subjecting it to LOGIC – would be subjecting scripture to LOGIC.
Therefore you raised Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation onto a pedestal and made it canon.
roland
I don’t know why you keep insisting that I have raised Calvinism to canon. I’m going to openly declare this right now. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CALVINISM IS CANON OR IS EQUAL TO IT. I REJECT THAT IDEA. IF I HAVE EVER MADE THE EXPLICIT STATEMENT THAT CALVINISM IS CANON, I RECANT OF THAT STATEMENT. I SAID BEFORE YOU CAN DISPROVE CALVINISM BY LOGIC. I’M SAYING IT AGAIN: YOU CAN DISPROVE CALVINISM BY LOGIC. I HAVE WRITTEN THAT I WILL NOT SUBJECT GOD’S WORD TO LOGIC. THAT’S WHAT I BELIEVE. MY ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IS SCRIPTURE NOT LOGIC NOT CALVINISM. I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR AND RESOLVES ANY DOUBTS. I DON’T KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT CLEARER.
I hope their is room in your personal worldview for people to take back statements that they have made in the past. If I have made that statement in the past: THAT CALVINISM IS CANON, IS GOD’S WORD, I WILL NOT SUBJECT CALVINISM, WHICH IS CANON, TO LOGIC, then I ask that I be permitted to withdraw that statement. I cannot defend such a statement that CALVINISM IS CANON, IS GOD’S WORD. So if I am not permitted to withdraw, I can’t defend it, you are just going to have to continue with the idea that I believe CALVINISM IS CANON, IS GOD’S WORD. Every time you refer to this in our discussion I will not answer it because I cannot defend such a position. So, you will be able to proceed with the statement that I believe CALVINISM IS CANON, IT IS GOD’S WORD and I can’t respond to it. You will have the last word each time you say that I believe CALVINISM IS CANON, IT IS GOD’S WORD.
br.d
Roland – if you are an adult Christian – then know full well that Jesus is “Fully God and Fully man”
roland
I am an adult Christian. But how do I know that Jesus is fully God and fully man? Is there some logical argument that proves Jesus is fully God and fully man? How does a non-Christian come to believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man?
You say that I should “know full well,” but how do I know this?
br.d
What does Jesus call a person who accuses someone of the very things they do?
But I’m sure you will conveniently ignore that question. :-]
roland
Hypocrite. I won’t ignore. I just answered. I came to this conclusion on the basis of what you wrote in another post. I don’t believe its hypocrisy and misrepresentation. To say that someone rejects something they really believe but don’t know is to at least imply that the person is delusional. It is the same game non-calvinists play. “Calvinists won’t say it, but here is what they really mean…” “Calvinists don’t really reject this, they really believe it, they just don’t know it or refuse to know it because…” In other words, we are delusional, you just won’t say it, or as non-calvinists insists on saying, “you’re not telling the whole truth.”
br.d
Oh Really????
Aren’t you going to raise Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation up onto a pedestal again and make it canon- by saying applying LOGIC to it would be applying LOGIC to scripture? :-]
I answered this above. Hopefully my response is sufficient to dismiss this charge.
br.d
I guess that means – you aren’t interested in finding out why Calvinists don’t REALLY reject Libertarian Freedom – while telling themselves they do. :-]
roland
Tell me why we reject libertarian freedom. I’m interested, I’ll read what you have to say. I probably won’t respond to today but I will read what you have to say.
roland
I don’t know why you keep insisting that I have raised Calvinism to canon. I’m going to openly declare this right now.
br.d
What you EXPLICITLY declare here – simply does not line up with what you NON-EXPLICITLY declared before.
That is very common behavior with Calvinism :-]
br.d
Roland – if you are an adult Christian – then know full well that Jesus is “Fully God and Fully man”
Roland
You say that I should “know full well,” but how do I know this?
br.d
What you should know – is that that has been the ORTHODOX position for centuries.
br.d
What does Jesus call a person who accuses someone of the very things they do?
But I’m sure you will conveniently ignore that question. :-]
roland
Hypocrite. I won’t ignore. I just answered.
br.d
Well then – if that is the case – will you continue doing it?
Roland
Tell me why we reject libertarian freedom. I’m interested, I’ll read what you have to say. I probably won’t respond to today but I will read what you have to say.
br.d
What I said was – Calvinist don’t REALLY reject Libertarian Freedom – they just tell themselves they do.
Is that what you want to see shown LOGICALLY?
Thanks for the reply, I have a really quick opportunity to ask you something, then I have to go back to “work”.
br.d
Roland – if you are an adult Christian – then know full well that Jesus is “Fully God and Fully man”
br.d
What you should know – is that that has been the ORTHODOX position for centuries.
Roland
Yes, I do know full well that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
My question is HOW do you know that Jesus is fully God and fully man? Do you believe it because it is ORTHODOX? Do you believe because as Christian it is a core belief of Christianity? Do you believe it because you read it in Scripture and just believed it? Do you believe it because someone made a rational or logical argument for Christ’s deity and humanity? If it was by an argument, then can Jesus being God and man be true outside of the argument? Or must it conform to the argument (syllogism) in order to be true?
I tried to provide as many options to the question as possible. If there is some other way by which anybody comes to believe that Jesus is both God and man, please, inform me. Thanks for reading.
Roland
My question is HOW do you know that Jesus is fully God and fully man?
Do you believe it because it is ORTHODOX?
br.d
I accept it has the highest understanding we currently have.
There are some things – especially at this time – we will never fully understand.
For many of those things – one accepts what is considered to be the most sound reasoning.
br.d
I accept it has the highest understanding we currently have.
There are some things – especially at this time – we will never fully understand.
For many of those things – one accepts what is considered to be the most sound reasoning.
Roland
But you seem to lean on, stand on, rely on logic a lot. I thought by asking this question to you, you would present a logical argument to prove that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
br.d
For many of those things – one accepts what is considered to be the most sound reasoning.
roland
Would you be willing to flesh how “sound reasoning” and the deity and humanity of Christ relate? I’m curious, I’m not looking for an argument I’m just wondering, picking at your mind and thought process. Thanks.
I say I’m not looking for an argument because sometimes I ask a question, and I get a very defensive response as if I am seeking to attack someone for something I’m interested in knowing. I’m not saying this has happened with you but just in general. I’d appreciate it, thanks.
Roland
But you seem to lean on, stand on, rely on logic a lot. I thought by asking this question to you, you would present a logical argument to prove that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
br.d
For many of those things – one accepts what is considered to be the most sound reasoning.
Roland
Would you be willing to flesh how “sound reasoning” and the deity and humanity of Christ relate? I’m curious,
br.d
It can be likened to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. A crucial component of that is called the “Light Postulate”, which states that light in space travels at a constant speed. Well that part of the theory is unprovable because we have no way of measuring it. Even so – after all of these years since Einstein came up with the theory – not only has it not been proven wrong – but aspects of the Theory of Relativity are constantly being confirmed by advancements in science and technology. So until someone can find a way to refine it or improve on it – it is considered the most sound reasoning.
However with Determinism – and its sub-groups (e.g. Natural Determinism and Theological Determinism) we actually have the opposite affect.
Which I could detail for you – if we were to step through the reasons why Calvinists don’t REALLY reject Libertarian Freedom – but merely tell themselves they do.
rhutchin: “How did Roland misrepresent you?”
br.d: “Please provide a quote from me stating “God is not sovereign”
I didn’t ask how Roland misquoted you but how did Roland misrepresent you. If you don’t want to answer that, that is fine – the discussion stops.
rhutchin
I didn’t ask how Roland misquoted you but how did Roland misrepresent
br.d
Why waste people’s time with idiocy?
If I were to state that the Calvinist world view is that God is not sovereign – would that not be a misrepresentation of the Calvinist world view?
rhutchin: “I didn’t ask how Roland misquoted you but how did Roland misrepresent you”
br.d: “If I were to state that the Calvinist world view is that God is not sovereign – would that not be a misrepresentation of the Calvinist world view?”
The issue is whether Roland misrepresented your position. If you had said, “the Calvinist world view is that God is not sovereign,” Roland could have quoted you as saying that. However, the original discussion was:
Roland: “My worldview is that God is sovereign and your worldview is that God is not sovereign…”
br.d: “And who gives you the authority to misrepresent me?”
So, my question again is, “How did Roland misrepresent you?” Did Roland misrepresent your position in saying that “your worldview is that God is not sovereign”?
rhutchin
I didn’t ask how Roland misquoted you but how did Roland misrepresent you”
br.d
Why waste people’s time with idiocy!
If I were to state that the Calvinist world view is that God is not sovereign – would that not be a misrepresentation of the Calvinist world view?”
rhutchin
The issue is whether Roland misrepresented your position.
br.d
And the idiocy continues!
The issue is did Roland misrepresent someone’s world view – which intellectual honesty has the ability to see. :-]
br.d
And who gives you the authority to misrepresent me?
Me: I’m assuming you disagree with the Calvinist view of God. We believe He is sovereign and exercises His sovereignty by interacting with His creation.
Where’s our differences?
Roland – Calvinism has its own unique definitions/inferences for divine sovereignty.
But Calvinism is a human tradition of interpretation
And there is no Calvinist that I know who has reached perfection.
Additionally a human tradition of interpretation may attempt to raise itself up onto a pedestal and declare itself canon.
But both of those patterns have been manifested historically in Catholicism
And they follow in the footsteps of a Catholic religious spirit.
And we are not talking about a holy spirit.
br.d
But Calvinism is a human tradition of interpretation
And there is no Calvinist that I know who has reached perfection.
All interpretations outside of the God’s Word are human traditions. The Apostles were the last humans to have a tradition that is Apostolic in tradition but still human. Once the Apostolic age ended, every interpretation has been human unless someone claims they received a divine tradition from God and can prove it.
br.d
But both of those patterns have been manifested historically in Catholicism
It has been manifested in all other Christian branches as well, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox just have the longest traditions. No Christians can claim not to have some residue of human in their tradition no matter how earnestly they declare otherwise.
br.d
But Calvinism is a human tradition of interpretation
And there is no Calvinist that I know who has reached perfection.
Roland
All interpretations outside of the God’s Word are human traditions.
br.d
Well if you know that – then you know that Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation is not canon
Therefore to tell someone they don’t hold to divine sovereignty – if they don’t hold to your tradition of it – is to raise your tradition up onto a pedestal and make it equal with scripture. Which is what Catholicism does.
Roland
It has been manifested in all other Christian branches as well, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox just have the longest traditions.
br.d
You’re not getting the point.
Arminians do not claim to have reached perfection – and they do not claim their tradition of interpretation is canon
Neither to the Eastern Orthodox.
Therefore you will not hear one of those believers tell someone – if you don’t hold to their definition of divine sovereignty – then you don’t hold to divine sovereignty. But Catholicism has done plenty of that throughout history.
br.d
Well if you know that – then you know that Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation is not canon
Therefore to tell someone they don’t hold to divine sovereignty – if they don’t hold to your tradition of it – is to raise your tradition up onto a pedestal and make it equal with scripture. Which is what Catholicism does.
roland
I don’t believe I have ever raised Calvinism to canon! At least not intentionally.
br.d
You’re not getting the point.
Arminians do not claim to have reached perfection – and they do not claim their tradition of interpretation is canon
Neither to the Eastern Orthodox.
roland
I don’t know where I have raised my definition of divine sovereignty to canon. I believe I have clearly stated that the big difference between Calvinists definition of divine sovereignty and non-Calvinist definition is that we believe His sovereignty is more prominent than a non-Calvinist. At least generally. Even Leighton has said he believes God determines some things but not all. Calvinists believe all, generally, including second causes that He has decreed.
br.d
Therefore you will not hear one of those believers tell someone – if you don’t hold to their definition of divine sovereignty – then you don’t hold to divine sovereignty. But Catholicism has done plenty of that throughout history.
roland
I don’t believe I have ever said that non-Calvinists do not hold to divine sovereignty. However, I do believe that if a person believes that humans have libertarian freewill, then they definitely have diminished God’s sovereignty and have a different anthropology than Calvinists. The range of how people believe God is sovereign is expansive. There comes a point in that expanse that God does “lose” His sovereignty in their view.
roland
I don’t believe I have ever raised Calvinism to canon! At least not intentionally.
br.d
All that tells me is that you are either not WILLING to acknowledge the TRUTH
You made Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation canon – when you declared that you would not allow the use of LOGIC to analyze it – because doing so would be to subject scripture to LOGIC.
Roland
I believe I have clearly stated that the big difference between Calvinists definition of divine sovereignty and non-Calvinist definition is that we believe His sovereignty is more prominent than a non-Calvinist.
br.d
Now you are simply lying!
You claimed that I don’t hold to sovereignty
Now you are trying to back-peddle
Roland
At least generally. Even Leighton has said he believes God determines some things but not all. Calvinists believe all
br.d
Yes – and the way you get around that – is to go about your office *AS-IF* some things are not determined in every part
That’s why Calvinism is DOUBLE-MINDED
Roland
I don’t believe I have ever said that non-Calvinists do not hold to divine sovereignty.
br.d
Go back to your statement to me then.
Perhaps you are not cognizant of a statement you make after you make it??
Roland
I no longer hold that as my standard. I used to reject Calvinism on the standard that God has given man libertarian freewill, without LFW,
br.d
Remember the wall you said we would hit if I approach Calvinism using LOGICAL thinking?
What you’ve been showing me – is that you’ve come to reject any LOGICAL thinking – if that LOGICAL thinking reveals rational problems with the belief system.
That is a major difference between you and I.
The maintenance of your belief system requires you to give up something that the maintenance of my belief system doesn’t require I give up.
Roland
I really do not have any way to “prove” my claim beyond presenting Bible verses as proof.
br.d
You would be presenting an INTERPRETATION as proof.
And we would be up against the same wall.
Because I would examine that INTERPRETATION under the scrutiny of LOGIC
And you’ve already told me multiple times – you reject that process.
brdmod writes, “1) With the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 – we have a divine potter who creates vessels of honor and creates vessels of wrath fit for destruction.
2) And John Calvin is very clear where he states:
-quote
“They are not found but MADE for destruction”
“They are DOOMED from the womb””
Romans 9 seems to be the source of the above when it says, “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,…”
Roland
How many Reformed works have you read? Because you were to read them you would notice that we do not speak, write, or teach the way you claim we do.
br.d
Oh I’m very familiar with Calvinism’s language patterns!!
The reason I do not use Reformed language patterns is because I don’t find those language patterns intellectually honest.
Take a look at these quotes from book authors – concerning Calvinist language.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – in its article on Theological Determinism writes this concerning the language used by Calvinist Paul Helm:
“Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”
Dr. William Lane Craig, in his interactions with Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth, in the authoring of the book Four Views on Divine Providence writes:
“A A. Hodge’s six-point summary of the classical Reformed view of divine providence, quoted by Paul Kjoss Helseth under ‘The True View of Providence Summarized’ falls short of expressing the radical distinctives of the Reformed position that Helseth defends.”
Dr. Jerry Walls, in his presentation What’s wrong with Calvinism states:
“If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”
Norman Geisler in his book Chosen but Free writes:
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
Laurence M. Vance in The Other Side of Calvinism writes about:
“The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)
Micah Coate in his book The Cultish side of Calvinism writes:
“Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”
Ronnie W. Rogers, in his book Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist writes:
As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”
Authors David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood in their book Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology write:
“This is a clear example of what I call Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”
Gilbert VanOrder Jr in his book Calvinism’s Conflicts: An Examination of the Problems in Reformed Theology writes:
“Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book Calvinism a closer look writes:
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false…
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”
Francis Hodgson in his book The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted, 1855 writes:
“The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency.
In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”
Roland
I’m curious to know is this is how you understand Calvinism or how you have heard it taught? Thanks for reading.
br.d
My introduction with Calvinism started with meeting a Calvinist pastor who could not tell his tiny congregation he was teaching them Calvinism for fear he would lose the little congregation he had. That became a red-flag that something was wrong.
For many years I was an avid reader of various theological works
I had a special fondness for F.F. Bruce and Gordon Fee
I always had a few books on the que to read – and I happened to buy a book by Loraine Boettner.
In that book I started noticing a form of hyper adoration focused on Calvin.
A little bit of that goes a long way for me.
As I continued to read – that adoration got more intense and shifted from hyper-adoration to hero-worship
I got to about to the second chapter and it got so bad that it actually made me sick to my stomach.
I actually threw that book in the trash.
Then I discovered Dr. William Lane Craig – and became impressed with the degree of precision which he thinks.
There are Atheists who joke that Dr. Craig’s precision in logic can -quote “put the fear of God into an Atheist”
It was through Dr. Craig that I learned about Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
That was 20 years ago – and examining Calvinism has been an interest ever since.
Then a few years ago I was searching the internet on Calvinism and bumped into SOT101
In Dr. Flowers youtube videos – he never ceases to impress me with his graciousness and humility – and I appreciate his logical thinking
So here I am at SOT101 :-]
br.d,
I agree with your more than one meaning idea.
Dead = Dead to sin (can still do it)
Dead = Prodigal son, can still come to his senses (Father stays home—how ’bout that story!)
Dead = (Calvinist) cannot respond.
“Dead mean dont make choices!” I wonder why Paul says he “is all things to all men to win some!” He says he “persuades” men, “he proves it to men,” he “reasons with” men (surely dead men cannot reason), he “convinces” men.
Nah… Calvinists make way to much out of that word dead. It does not match Paul’s speech at all!
Calvinists have no answer for this.
Oh yea!!!!
There are words in Calvinism that are simply accordion words
The Calvinist expands their meaning to whatever meets his temporary need – and then shrinks it for the same reasons.
Calvinism’s power is manipulating language.
I never ever get an answer about how “dead” is overused by Calvinists.
How about that reformed professor who takes his class to a graveyard and says “preach to these corpses —it is the same thing!”
Then he takes them back to classes to teach them apologetics, debate techniques, and how to make convincing messages. That is just dysfunctional!
And besides it is not biblical. Christ himself said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” If Calvinists were right with their silly “Dead men dont make choices” then Christ would have said It was “the dead” who needed Him.
No one ever responds to the various ways that dead is used by Calvinists …and how persuade, convince, reason with is used by Paul.
Yeah, yeah….”secondary means” as if God first regenerates them, gives them faith, and then needs Paul to “persuade” them and reason with them.
Crickets!
FOH:
And besides it is not biblical. Christ himself said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Me:
Jesus used more than one analogy to convey His message. If what you say is true, that we are not spiritually dead, then Jesus would have said “I have come that they may have health.” Yes, He did come to heal, I agree, but He also said He came that they may have life as well. Christ used multiple parables to convey kingdom truths to His disciples and His hearers.
John 10:10
10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
FOH writes, “How about that reformed professor who takes his class to a graveyard and says “preach to these corpses —it is the same thing!””
The Calvinist understands that people without faith are like corpses – they cannot respond positively to the preaching of the gospel; the gospel is foolishness to people without faith. But then, God regenerates them and gives them faith and the rest is history.
FOH writes, “Nah… Calvinists make way to much out of that word dead. It does not match Paul’s speech at all!
Calvinists have no answer for this.”
That’s because you cut out all the verses in your Bible that speak of faith. Even Paul knew that all his efforts – “he “persuades” men, “he proves it to men,” he “reasons with” men (surely dead men cannot reason), he “convinces” men,” – are but planting and watering – It is God who gives the increase and God draws people to Christ and gives them faith to believe in Christ. God uses Paul and Paul’s efforts to persuade, reason, and convince and by these methods, those whom God has given to Christ and then drawn to Christ will come to Christ.
But then, you surely know this and have rejected it.
rhutchin
That’s because you cut out all the verses in your Bible that speak of
br.d
This is a great example of GNOSTOI! :-]
rhutchin: “That’s because [FOH] cut out all the verses in your Bible that speak of faith”
br.d: “This is a great example of GNOSTOIC! ”
GNOSTOIC! – LOL!!!! It was nothing more than a reasonable observation.
rhutchin
GNOSTOI! – LOL!!!! It was nothing more than a reasonable observation.
br.d
Well that becomes a good example of what “reasonable” looks like in Calvinism! :-]
Calvinist accuse us of being universalists. It is actually Calvinists that are (only they are mini-universalists).
Universalists say God takes everyone cuz He wants to, and man has nothing to do with it.
Calvinists say God takes (some of) everyone cuz He wants to, and man has nothing to do with it.
Surprise!! Who knew!!
FOH writes, “Calvinists say God takes (some of) everyone cuz He wants to, and man has nothing to do with it.”
This from John 6, where Jesus said, “All those who the Father gives me will come to me. Him who comes to me I will in no way throw out.” God chooses whom to give to Christ and He chooses using the same method He used to choose Jacob over Esau as Paul describes in Romans 9, “For [Jacob and Esau] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to Rebecca, “The elder will serve the younger.” Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
“Surprise!! Who knew!!” I think we can say that God knew.
Roland
I’m not the only Calvinist on this website that has come to the conclusion that Leighton misrepresents Calvinism
br.d
Which means nothing of course!
This is called the “Bandwagon Fallacy” :-]
br.d
Which means nothing of course!
This is called the “Bandwagon Fallacy” :-]
I asked: Is Peter and the about three thousand that were saved in Acts 2 guilty of this logical fallacy (Bandwagon fallacy, I’ve never even heard of this one!)?
Here is the official definition
Bandwagon fallacy
In argumentation theory, “Argumentum ad populum” is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many people believe it.
If one has a LOGICAL claim – then one is easily able to provide a LOGICAL argument to show how that claim is true.
In this case – you’re claim is that Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism
So far – the arguments you’ve made – continue to be one misfire after another.
Dr. Flowers disagrees with aspects of Calvinism – which he finds logically and morally problematic.
Do you find any aspect of the Jehovah’s Witness problematic?
And if you were to enunciate those things you find problematic about JWs – then following your pattern here – all they have to do is claim you are misrepresenting them.
And that would make them right and you wrong?
I think if you take the time to think that through you will understand how that just doesn’t work.
br.d thanks for the information, learned a new logical fallacy
br.d
If one has a LOGICAL claim – then one is easily able to provide a LOGICAL argument to show how that claim is true.
In this case – you’re claim is that Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism
I wrote: He doesn’t all the time you just can’t see it because of your bias, it has blinded you.
br.d
So far – the arguments you’ve made – continue to be one misfire after another.
I wrote: I’m right on target. Leighton and his followers know it. That’s why Leighton has to keep making video after video and article after article. He knows he’s failing. That’s why the other day I read one of his followers say that Calvinism is growing because it is the delusion in the last days.
br.d
Dr. Flowers disagrees with aspects of Calvinism – which he finds logically and morally problematic.
I wrote: The one thing he can’t do, and will never do, is refute Calvinism biblically. Leighton is really good at analogies. All day he can say, “it is like…” But, he can never cite a chapter and verse to prove provisionism. It’s not in the Bible.
br.d
Do you find any aspect of the Jehovah’s Witness problematic?
And if you were to enunciate those things you find problematic about JWs – then following your pattern here – all they have to do is claim you are misrepresenting them.
I wrote: I never have to misrepresent another belief. I just have to show them in the Bible where it refutes their belief. I have plenty of discussions with JWs, they no longer stop at my house because they know I will point them to John 1:1, 1:12, Hebrews 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, John 8, etc. I don’t get into a logical debate as to whether God became a man, that Jesus is the true God. I use the Word of God as that is my source of authority.
br.d
And that would make them right and you wrong?
I think if you take the time to think that through you will understand how that just doesn’t work.
I wrote: Making people right or wrong is not my job. I am not trusting in my arguments, logic, reason, etc. I’m trusting in God’s Word and the Holy Spirit to illuminate a person’s mind. There have been times where I got into discussions where I foolishly did not look to God’s Word. But I try to trust God to work this His Word.
Honestly, I don’t ever expect anyone on Leighton’s website to be convinced by the verse I quote and the reasoning I make from the Scripture. Everybody, I don’t care who it is, believes they are right no matter how wrong they can be. Thanks for reading.
br.d
If one has a LOGICAL claim – then one is easily able to provide a LOGICAL argument to show how that claim is true.
In this case – you’re claim is that Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism
Roland
He doesn’t all the time you just can’t see it because of your bias, it has blinded you.
br.d
And this is your LOGICAL argument to show your claim is true!!
Roland I hope you don’t take yourself seriously!
So far – the arguments you’ve made – continue to be one misfire after another.
Roland
I wrote: I’m right on target. Leighton and his followers know it. That’s why Leighton has to keep making video after video and article after article. He knows he’s failing. That’s why the other day I read one of his followers say that Calvinism is growing because it is the delusion in the last days.
br.d
And I supposed he is also collaborating with aliens from Pluto! :-]
Roland
The one thing he can’t do, and will never do, is refute Calvinism biblically.
br.d
I’m sure that’s your opinion.
But certainly not from my point of view.
Calvinist interpretations of scripture tend to be IRRATIONAL
Roland
Leighton is really good at analogies.
br.d
Well – if you were alive in Jesus’ day – you probably wouldn’t like his analogies then.
Roland
I never have to misrepresent another belief.
br.d
That’s not the point.
Tell me something you don’t like about the JWs
All they have to do is say you are misrepresenting them
Then they’ll have your argument
Roland
Making people right or wrong is not my job.
br.d
Where did I say anything about making PEOPLE right or wrong!
Roland – how old are you?
What grade are you in school?
br.d
Roland – how old are you?
What grade are you in school?
I wrote: I’m too young to understand memes! So, take a guess.
Well – I’m going to guess you are perhaps 18?
br.dbr.d
I’m sure that’s your opinion.
But certainly not from my point of view.
Calvinist interpretations of scripture tend to be IRRATIONAL
I’m still waiting. Prominent Calvinist quote that shows how irrational our interpretations of Scripture are. Show me a quote from a prominent Calvinist who irrationally interprets Scripture.
Roland
Do you accept the Calvinist doctrine which stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass – does so by infallible decrees established before man is created?
br.dRoland
Do you accept the Calvinist doctrine which stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass – does so by infallible decrees established before man is created?
Me: Yes.
br.d
Roland – Do you accept the Calvinist doctrine which stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass – does so by infallible decrees established before man is created?
Roland
Yes.
br.d
Ok cool!
So then – isn’t it true that 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is infallibly decreed before man is created – leaving ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass UN-determined?
br.d
Ok cool!
So then – isn’t it true that 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is infallibly decreed before man is created – leaving ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass UN-determined?
Me: Yes. Nothing is undetermined. I reject Molinism, even though there are occasions in Scripture where God appears to lack knowledge about events, the clearer Scripture teaches the opposite. I reject open theism as well.
br.d
So then – isn’t it true that 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is infallibly decreed before man is created – leaving ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass UN-determined?
Roland
Yes
br.d
Ok – lets do a little logic.
Let’s label “Whatsoever comes to pass” as [X]
You’ve stated that 100% of [X] is determined at the foundation of the world before man is created
You’ve stated that ZERO% of [X] is left UN-determined.
So – seeing that we have 100% of [X] that is determined before man exists
I’m sure you will agree that each [X] that is determined – represents a choice by the divine mind – correct?
br.d
Ok – lets do a little logic.
Let’s label “Whatsoever comes to pass” as [X]
You’ve stated that 100% of [X] is determined at the foundation of the world before man is created
You’ve stated that ZERO% of [X] is left UN-determined.
So – seeing that we have 100% of [X] that is determined before man exists
I’m sure you will agree that each [X] that is determined – represents a choice by the divine mind – correct?
Me: Ok, so here is where we are going to run into a wall. I’m anticipating that you are somehow going to disprove Calvinism by logic or that it is against reason. I’ve expressed this before, I do not subject the Word of God to logic, reason, philosophy, etc. If I do so, then my authority is something outside of God’s Word, which I reject.
Allow me to explain to you how Calvinists, generally speaking as we are not a monolithic group, believe God’s decree, God’s determining of all things, God’s will, God’s plan, God’s counsel work together. This is the Westminster Confession of Faith’s standard in a generic but real sense because there is some variety. First, we believe that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. He has not only stated it but has determined. He will “will” it to be so. It has been His plan since eternity past. He has not sought the counsel of anyone. It comes from Him, flows from Him. There are very philosophical debates about all of this and that is too deep for me I avoid them. Some Calvinists get very dogmatic about this stuff, I’m just a layman, I don’t have a theology or philosophy degree.
Basically, we believe God has decreed all things that have, are, and will come to pass. However, we also follow Scriptures teaching that God is not the author of sin or evil. Also, we believe He does not violate man’s will in the sense that He has to force people to accomplish His decree. Jesus told Pilate that no authority can be given to him except from above. God granted Pilate the authority to crucify Jesus but He did “force” Pilate to so do. Finally, we also believe God accomplishes His decree actively as well as passively. That is, sometimes He permits things to happen without being involved in an active manner. Last thing, we also believe in second causes but we hold God to be the primary cause of all things. Think of a car accident involving multiple rear end collision.
This is a very broad and general view of the Reformed perspective of God’s decree. Every Christian has a perspective on God’s decree but for most outside of the Reformed tradition it is not as robust.
Here’s the answer to your question: “represents a choice by the divine mind – correct?” If you are going to tell me that God has made all of our choices for us, I reject that premise. I will repeat again something that Leighton and his followers persistently set forth: we are not robots. Humans are not robots, programs, puppets, etc. I know that is the conclusion of many people, I used to believe Calvinism taught this because that’s what I was told. But I began to investigate Scripture and Reformed theologians who taught this truth, so I embraced it.
Is that where you are going or am I wrong?Are you now going to tell me that this is the rational and logical conclusion to Calvinism or am I wrong?
br.d: “Do you accept the Calvinist doctrine which stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass – does so by infallible decrees established before man is created?”
Roland: “Yes.”
God’s decree makes future events certain. It does not bring about those events. God’s decree contains within it all the actions God will take to accomplish His purposes and the responses of people to His actions. It is the interaction between God and man that brings about the events.
rhutchin
God’s decree makes future events certain. It does not bring about those events.
br.d
The phrase “bring about” is ambiguous language – and therefore misleading – and thus unreliable .
To be precise: we have determinism – which is the thesis that every event is CAUSED by an antecedent event.
In Calvinism the infallible decree is the necessary antecedent which CAUSES every event that comes to pass.
Since a well informed Calvinist should know that – it raises the specter of why there is an inclination towards ambiguous language! :-]
brdmod writes, “In Calvinism the infallible decree is the necessary antecedent which CAUSES every event that comes to pass.”
This is wrong. The infallible decree is the necessary antecedent which gives certainty to every event that comes to pass; it does not cause any event. As God issues the decree, it is God who is the first, and remote, cause of every event that comes to pass but not the proximate cause in most cases. Obviously, God flooded the earth in the time of Noah and God raised Christ from the grave.
rhutchin
This is wrong.
br.d
“Wrong” for you means – it doesn’t fit Calvinist talking-points
Causal Determinism – Stanford Encyclopedia:
-quote
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is CAUSED by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Sorry rhutchin! :-]
brdmod writes, “In Calvinism the infallible decree is the necessary antecedent which CAUSES every event that comes to pass.”
rhutchin: “This is wrong.”
br.d: “Wrong” for you means – it doesn’t fit Calvinist talking-points
Causal Determinism – Stanford Encyclopedia:
-quote
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is CAUSED by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Sorry rhutchin!”
LOL!!! This issue here is not the definition of Causal Determinism. It is identifying the antecedent cause of every event. The infallible decree is not the cause of all future events. God is the cause because He issues the infallible decree.
rhutchin
LOL!!! This issue here is not the definition of Causal Determinism. It is identifying the antecedent cause of every event. The infallible decree is not the cause of all future events. God is the cause because He issues the infallible decree.
br.d
Thank you for affirming what I said
The issuance of the infallible decree would certainly be the antecedent CAUSE of the infallible decree.
But every event – within any given chain of events – has the infallible decree as an antecedent CAUSE.
Therefore – it follows – the infallible decree is a necessary antecedent CAUSE for every event.
br.d writes, “But every event – within any given chain of events – has the infallible decree as an antecedent CAUSE.”
OK. Then everything between God’s decision to create and a future event is an antecedent cause also. That is what Calvinists call secondary causes. God is the first or remote cause with all intermediate actions being antecedent causes until the last cause that would then be the proximate cause.
rhutchin
OK. Then everything between God’s decision to create and a future event is an antecedent cause also.
br.d
Not quite.
Every specific decision for every specific part – of every specific event.
That’s why Calvin uses the language of things being determined -quote “In every part”
And that is why Paul Helm’s says:
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN of each
of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL control of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
And that is why Calvin says:
-quote
Men may NOT even agitate ANYTHING in their deliberations but what he INSPIRES
(A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
No specific decree = no specific impulse in your brain
No decree at all = no impulse at all
I understand why you have a intense urgency to somehow smuggle “MERE” permission into your depictions
But it doesn’t exist in Calvinism.
Absolutely NOTHING is “MERELY” permitted in Calvinism
Whatever is CAUSED is PERMITTED
Whatever is NOT CAUSED – is NOT PERMITTED.
And Calvin’s god doesn’t’ look into his crystal ball of infinite understanding – which “MERELY” permits a person make a choice which he himself did not specifically first conceive and determine that person make.
That is called a computer SIMULATION of LFW
Or in your case – a divine HoloDeck :-]
br.d
Well – I’m going to guess you are perhaps 18?
Me: Let’s get to some important questions, it is getting close to my night night time!
Roland,
“Again, show me where I’m lying.”
Gladly. You are not making arguments/disagreeing when you are making objective fact-based claims about a person, the behavior, and their livelihood. These are the lies you are propagating right now.
Lie 1: “I am saying that Leighton and his followers always misrepresent our views.”
You are using the word “always”, you are lying. You aren’t pointing to a specific instance in which Dr. Flowers or myself have misrepresented Calvinists, you are making an objective statement about what “always” happens.
Lie 2: “Leighton is the king of cut and paste videos of Calvinists.”
This is a lie because it’s objectively the case that Dr. Flowers plays entire sermons, spending 1.5-3hrs playing entire sermons, and at the very least 10-20min clips of sermons. Playing a continuous 10min of a sermon is not “cut and paste” and you’re lying because you know that. You know that the standard of “cut and paste” is not “Plays RC Sproul in context for 10-30min” but you’re trying to make Dr. Flowers sound nefarious so you lie about what it is he is doing.
Lie 3: “Leighton’s whole life and ministry exists to teach what Calvinists really believe.”
You know that you don’t know what Dr. Flower’s life and ministry is like. You know that you don’t know what he does for a living, or you do know and you’re still lying. You know you don’t know this man personally or professionally, and you are claiming to know in order to make him look bad. You’re lying.
You ought to retract these lies about a brother in Christ and repent of your motivation to paint him in the worst light possible.
“No, I’m annoyed that Leighton uses logical fallacies to avoid answering questions.”
Questions and arguments that employ logical fallacies are invalid questions/arguments and it’s literally the purpose of rational dialogue to point this out so we can get at the valid arguments/questions. It doesn’t matter if this annoys you. Make better arguments. Learn to reason. Learn the stronger arguments for your side and use those. Learn the strongest arguments on the other side then learn how to refute them. Fixing your emotions and weaknesses is not the job of your opponent.
Re: Quoting Calvinists: “Again, always in a bad light. I’ve had non-Calvinists on this website admit that it is not their responsibility to paint Calvinism in a good light. In other words, its ok to misrepresent.”
Yes, it’s literally not our job to use your flowery language to dress up Calvinism and make it sound more palatable to the ear. It’s not my job to tickle your ears and make you feel good about what I’m saying. You have a lot of emotionally charged euphemisms you are using in place of “disagreement”. “In a bad light” = disagreement. What we’re doing is quoting Calvinists and then disagreeing and your response is to come onto the Sot101 blog and complain we’re painting Calvinism in a bad light. It’s called disagreeing. Buck up kiddo, this is the realm of ideas. This is how this works.
” There are a few things I try to avoid when I have discussions with people who disagree with me. One, I avoid name calling. Two, I try to avoid intentional misrepresentations of their positions.”
I cannot fathom how you think this is true. You used White calling Flowers “cowardly” as an example of a valid criticism and use broad-sweeping claims to make Flowers seems as nefarious and dastardly as possible. Like I said, you’re living in a world of your own creation where you’re the hero of the story and everyone else is the villain.
“Plenty, I have over 100 bible commentaries in my personal library. I even have non-reformed commentators! Thanks for reading.”
Great! Then you know is a valid biblical hermenuetic to go to biblical backgrounds, including other passages in the Bible that inform that context, to show the context of any passage you are about to exegete. That’s what Dr. Flowers did.
Rich Pierce, in a personal 45min phone call I had with him recently, told me that James White saw the approach Flowers was taking and decided to not engage with it. White refused to stick with the debate format after hearing Flower’s opening statements. Flowers and White agreed to do a debate, White refused to honor that debate when he didn’t like the approach Flowers was taking.
Hi Eric,
I’ve personally come the point where I conclude that with many Calvinists the “misrepresentation” claim is senseless to try to resolve.
I can present any number of TRUTH-STATEMENTS – which are absolutely true in Calvinism.
But the problem the Calvinist has with those statements – is that they reveal aspects of the doctrine – which the Calvinist representation does not reveal.
Therefore in the Calvinist’s mind – I am deviating from the Calvinistic representation.
And any deviation from the Calvinistic representation (in the mind of the Calvinist) equates to misrepresenting Calvinism.
Dr. Flowers has consistently stated – the underlying urgency behind the “misrepresentation” claim – is the fact that he does not paint Calvinism in the light they want it to be painted. Therefore he is misrepresenting it
And there is no way to LOGICALLY resolve that issue.
For me – it become a process of going around in endless circles – in any dialog.
Just my two cents! :-]
br.d
I’ve personally come the point where I conclude that with many Calvinists the “misrepresentation” claim is senseless to try to resolve
Roland: Yes, as a Calvinist, I agree.
br.d
I can present any number of TRUTH-STATEMENTS – which are absolutely true in Calvinism.
Roland: This is the issue: TRUTH-STATEMENTS. I can also make TRUTH-STATEMENTS about non-calvinists that they would reject. I see them as logical conclusions to their arguments but they don’t. I do the same with Calvinism. I don’t believe the non-calvinist’s arguments are logical conclusions to what we believe because they will operate from a different premise than we do.
br.d
But the problem the Calvinist has with those statements – is that they reveal aspects of the doctrine – which the Calvinist representation does not reveal
Roland: Agree but that is a problem that is inherent in all worldview. The Christian worldview has inherent representations that non-Christians can present but that will be rejected by the Christian.
br.d
Therefore in the Calvinist’s mind – I am deviating from the Calvinistic representation.
And any deviation from the Calvinistic representation (in the mind of the Calvinist) equates to misrepresenting Calvinism.
Roland: Yes, I agree.
br.d
Dr. Flowers has consistently stated – the underlying urgency behind the “misrepresentation” claim – is the fact that he does not paint Calvinism in the light they want it to be painted. Therefore he is misrepresenting it
Roland: This is my biggest concern with Leighton and Calvinism. I believe he misrepresents Calvinism because he does not understand Calvinism. An example from his debate with James White is that Leighton could not distinguish between humans being born with a heart of stone and judicial hardening. He should know as a former Calvinist the distinction that Calvinists make but he continually “misrepresents” Calvinism as these being both the same and Calvinists making a “distinction without a difference.”
Nobody likes being misrepresented. When James White criticized Leighton’s choice meat analogy, in his response Leighton was furious, about the very same things he does to Calvinists all the time. He calls us brothers in the Lord, then he gets together with other non-calvinist like Kevin Thompson, Warren McGrew, and others, then proceeds to mock God’s decree, misrepresent us, come to conclusions that Calvinists reject, distort premises from which Calvinists defend our beliefs, etc. Leighton’s tone is one of mockery even Mike Winger is more gracious than Leighton. I would expect more from Leighton since he claims to be a former Calvinist.
br.d
And there is no way to LOGICALLY resolve that issue.
For me – it become a process of going around in endless circles – in any dialog.
Roland: I agree.
Roland:
This is the issue: TRUTH-STATEMENTS. I can also make TRUTH-STATEMENTS about non-calvinists that they would reject.
br.d
And if those TRUTH-STATEMENTS are TRUE – then the non-Calvinist would be rejecting the TRUTH
Roland
I don’t believe the non-calvinist’s arguments are logical conclusions
br.d
Oh no you don’t – you’re not going to get away with that!
You’ve stated multiple times – you don’t examine your belief system under the scrutiny of LOGIC
So you don’t use LOGIC
Which means you can’t find non-Calvinist arguments illogical.
Roland
The Christian worldview has inherent representations that non-Christians can present but that will be rejected by the Christian.
br.d
That may be TRUE for you – but it is not TRUE for me.
The scripture says “Buy the TRUTH and sell it not”
For me – the Christian who rejects TRUTH-STATEMENTS is disobeying scripture and choosing voluntary blindness
Jesus lamented and said: The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
When it comes to the point where an Atheist is wise enough to have TRUTH which a Christian cannot allow himself to accept – we are in a sad situation
br.d
That may be TRUE for you – but it is not TRUE for me.
roland:
Are you saying the problem of evil is not a problem in your view of Christianity? That’s a very big problem for every branch of Christianity. What about creation? Are saying that the issue of creation in Christianity is not a problem with non-Christians? Ultimate truth claims?
br.d
For me – the Christian who rejects TRUTH-STATEMENTS is disobeying scripture and choosing voluntary blindness
roland:
But that’s the big dispute: what are the TRUTH-STATEMENTS? I’m talking about disagreements Christians can have with non-Christians. How do you respond to an atheist who proposes a belief that he believes is true and a theist who rejects it?
br.d
When it comes to the point where an Atheist is wise enough to have TRUTH which a Christian cannot allow himself to accept – we are in a sad situation
roland: Is not that the issue with atheism and Christianity? What is truth? Christians claim truth, atheists claim truth?
I could be wrong. Do you have any peculiar views about these issues that an atheist would see as a TRUTH-STATEMENTS that they could not reject, argue against, put into a syllogism showing the claim to be false?
br.d
That may be TRUE for you – but it is not TRUE for me.
roland:
Are you saying the problem of evil is not a problem in your view of Christianity?
br.d
We were talking about TRUTH-STATEMENTS
And you were saying that there are some TRUTH-STATEMENTS that a Christian will reject.
That’s why I said “That may be TRUE for you but is not TRUE for me.
The scripture says “Buy the TRUTH and sell it not”
For me – the Christian who rejects TRUTH-STATEMENTS is disobeying scripture and choosing voluntary blindness
Roland:
But that’s the big dispute: what are the TRUTH-STATEMENTS? I’m talking about disagreements Christians can have with non-Christians.
br.d
A disagreement is not to be confused with a TRUTH-STATEMENT.
A TRUTH-STATEMENT is a statement of TRUTH.
That’s why I said to you – if a Non-Calvinist rejects a TRUTH-STATEMENT he is rejecting the TRUTH.
Roland
How do you respond to an atheist who proposes a belief that he believes is true and a theist who rejects it?
br
A belief is not the same thing as a TRUTH-STATEMENT.
People can believe all sorts of things that are not TRUE.
There are people in this world who believe the bible teaches the earth is flat.
And people who believe all sorts of things that are LOGICALLY incoherent.
Jesus said: “The children of this generation are wiser than the children of light”
When it comes to the point where an Atheist is wise enough to have TRUTH which a Christian cannot allow himself to accept – we are in a sad situation
Roland
Is not that the issue with atheism and Christianity? What is truth? Christians claim truth, atheists claim truth?
br.d
Well they can claim to have a belief – which they believe is TRUE.
But if what they hold as TRUTH is irrational – then they are claiming that TRUTH is irrational
Roland
I could be wrong. Do you have any peculiar views about these issues that an atheist would see as a TRUTH-STATEMENTS that they could not reject, argue against, put into a syllogism showing the claim to be false?
br.d
You could search for Youtube videos with Dr. William Lane Craig – who debates Atheists
He’s the one they joke about – saying he’s the only person they know who can put the fear of God into an Atheist
But there is another Youtube video
The name of it is “Calvinism: Intrinsically Irrational”
It is an Atheist’s examination of some claims made by a certain Calvinist theologian.
Its sad to watch – because the Atheist has the ability to recognize LOGICAL FALLACIES which the Calvinist either does not see – or is willing to live with.
br.d writes, “I can present any number of TRUTH-STATEMENTS – which are absolutely true in Calvinism.”
You misrepresent Calvinism where you claim, “In Calvinism the infallible decree is the necessary antecedent which CAUSES every event that comes to pass.”
You also misrepresent is the manner in which Calvinist come to truth statements. An example is where you say something like, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism is the foundation for Calvinism.”
br.d
I can present any number of TRUTH-STATEMENTS – which are absolutely true in Calvinism.”
rhutchin
You misrepresent Calvinism where you claim, “In Calvinism the infallible decree is the necessary antecedent which CAUSES every event that comes to pass.”
br.d
That’s the academic definition of Determinism
But I can understand why it doesn’t work for you! :-]
rhutchin
You also misrepresent is the manner in which Calvinist come to truth statements. An example is where you say something like, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism is the foundation for Calvinism.
br.d
Which simply means – that is not your representation :-]
br.d: “Which simply means – that is not your representation :-]”
LOL!!! So, you the non-Calvinist get to dictate what Calvinism says no matter what Calvinism really says. LOL!!!
br.d
Which simply means – that is not your representation :-]”
rhutchin
LOL!!! So, you the non-Calvinist get to dictate what Calvinism says no matter what Calvinism really says. LOL!!!
br.d
Its entertaining to watch someone laughing at his own non sequiturs :-]
Wow Eric,
So much anger, immaturity, and falsehood in one place! I am sure that an apology from the young lad will be forthcoming after you laid it out so well.
Eric, the block is hot bro, I’m dipping. I will admit to using hyperbolic language. I will not defend James White as I will admit he is arrogant. As far Leighton goes, I can only say I’ve seen enough of his videos, read his book about provisioinism, and interacted with those on this website to know that he comes off as hating us Calvinists. I will no longer make broad general claims about Leighton as I have in the past as you are right, that is not Christ-like. I’m going to tell you it is hard not to get frustrated with somebody who is making such great efforts to refute something a person holds as a strong, sincere belief.
If you want specific instances of Leighton misrepresenting Calvinism, then you are going to have give me time, as I have seen them but I will document them as you believe I’m a liar. Thanks for reading.
Roland,
“Eric, the block is hot bro, I’m dipping.”
I’m not quite sure what this means but I think you’re saying this conversation has become contentious. It seems to me that you came into this comment section with a heavy boot and kicked the door down. Knock next time and we’ll let you in.
“I will no longer make broad general claims about Leighton as I have in the past as you are right, that is not Christ-like.”
I appreciate that, but also it seems like it’s only a half-apology. Your claims were not merely “hyperbole” or “broad general claims”, they were also objectively fallacious in the way I outlined for you. But I’ll take what I can get.
May I suggest that not only are you “annoyed” and “frustrated” by Dr. Flower’s criticisms of Calvinism, but that your emotional tie to these doctrines causes you to be unfairly biased against Dr. Flowers? Please hear me, I’m not asking you to agree with him, I’m asking if perhaps Dr. Flowers merely sincerely disagrees.
Thanks for the reply, Eric.
Eric
I think you’re saying this conversation has become contentious. It seems to me that you came into this comment section with a heavy boot and kicked the door down. Knock next time and we’ll let you in.
Me
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. My personal experience with online conversation is that once it becomes contentious, one party or both resort to insults, misunderstandings become more complicated, etc. I would rather leave the conversation as I don’t believe there is any way to repair such a contentious conversation. That’s what I mean but your reply doesn’t sound contentious except that you said I came into the comment section with a heavy boot… You have understand something about Dr. Flowers, he irks a lot of Calvinists, or at least our reactions to him. If I came in hot, then it was something I was reacting to that Dr. Flowers said or someone else said. I’ll try to refrain from coming in hot.
Eric
I appreciate that, but also it seems like it’s only a half-apology.
Me
I fully apologize, I did not intend to make a half-apology. Since my comments were false, I take them back, and I will refuse from writing in such a manner. I must have failed to express my apology as you took it as a half-apology. My fault.
Eric
they were also objectively fallacious in the way I outlined for you.
Me
I don’t believe that what I wrote about Dr. Flowers was objectively fallacious. I admit to hyperbole but at times Dr. Flowers has done the things I said he did. I have not had time to find videos or articles that show but I plan on doing so.
Eric
but that your emotional tie to these doctrines causes you to be unfairly biased against Dr. Flowers? Please hear me, I’m not asking you to agree with him, I’m asking if perhaps Dr. Flowers merely sincerely disagrees.
Me
My emotional ties to Calvinism? I’ll think and consider how I am emotionally tied to Calvinism, sure, that’s a reasonable request. Am I biased? Of course I have a bias towards non-Calvinist doctrine. Am I unfairly bias toward Dr. Flowers? I’m going to examine that as I believe he is unfairly bias towards Calvinists. No, I doubt I will ever agree with Dr. Flowers.
Does he merely sincerely disagree? I don’t know. I don’t doubt his sincerity but I think his disagreement with Calvinism goes beyond that. I’m convinced Dr. Flowers has animus toward Calvinists and Calvinism.
If he believes Calvinists are Christians, then why does he devote a website, articles, and videos solely towards Calvinism? Only Calvinism. I don’t get it. He runs an anti-Calvinist website. That sinks deep into my mind. Then those on this website call Calvinism a false gospel, heretical, the Calvinist god is equal to satan, etc. Yes, when I read these things about what other Christians believe about Calvinists, I respond in an emotional way but I shouldn’t.
I can go on further. I know there are Calvinists who do it as well. James White is arrogant. I know we are just as bad if not worse. That should not be an excuse for either side. I’ve tried to engage in civil discourse, I have failed, I apologize. thanks for reading.
Eric
Please hear me, I’m not asking you to agree with him, I’m asking if perhaps Dr. Flowers merely sincerely disagrees.
Me
Yes, it is possible that Dr. Flowers merely sincerely disagrees but I addressed that in another post with you. Last night I took the time to watch three videos of different lengths as I believe it is wrong for me to accuse Dr. Flowers of something that I had no evidence of. In the three videos I watched, I’ll mention two for the sake of brevity, here’s what I found that I believe backs my claims that Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism, Calvinists, and I would even say mock us.
First, one video had an image in the introduction that showed John Piper and RC Sproul shaking hands. Piper says, God brings about every evil for HIs own glory,” then RC responds, “Indeed! Let’s spread the word.”
That’s a misrepresentation of Calvinists spreading a message we do not spread. It is not the primary message of Calvinists that “God brings about every evil for His own glory.” Dr. Flowers should know better since he is a former Calvinist. Yes, it might just be Dr. Flowers having fun with a little entertainment for his viewers but to me I believe it’s a mockery and insult of Calvinist beliefs. It’s a misrepresentation.
More from the video “CHOOSE DETERMINISM?” then there are several images of men drinking beer, smoking cigars, 1689 tattoos, that I can only assume are supposed to represent Calvinists.
I have heard Dr. Flowers say that not all Calvinist drink alcohol, have tattoos, smoke cigars, etc. but why put forth an image of Calvinists that he believes is not representative of us? Unless he really believes that’s representative of us or maybe he’s just having fun with a little entertainment, maybe he’s mocking us, ridiculing us. I don’t’ know but it doesn’t seem fair.
From the video “John 6: Lennox vs. White” I watched this whole video and took about four pages of notes. I have multiple quotes from the video where Dr. Flowers misrepresents us, our doctrine, does what he hates being accused of to James White, etc. Again, maybe Dr. Flowers is just having fun, maybe he’s frustrated, I can’t get to the exact intent of Dr. Flowers’ heart and mind.
First example around the 18 minute mark: Dr. Flowers says, “Oh, these people were born of the devil.” He said this as to imply that this is what James White really believes the text says yet James never says such a thing. James speaking about the text doesn’t say what Dr. Flowers says James says. James says, “You can’t hear because you are not of God.” This is in reference to John 8.
Second example around the 27:40 mark: Dr. Flowers says in regards to James, “Notice his little caveat, yeah, they can respond to it, but they can only respond in hatred, rebellion, and rejection of it.”
Dr. Flowers then goes on to say that the Scripture points to many people who believe and there are righteous people. His implication is that Calvinists don’t believe text that talk about believing and being righteous. Dr. Flowers also says Calvinists “hyperfocus on just ‘no one is righteous, no not one.” I don’t even remember James White bringing this up from Romans 3
Third example around 33:17 Dr. Flowers says “You have nothing within all of these text that teach the Calvinistic presupposition of this quote unquote sovereign decree.” Again, Dr. Flowers is putting words into James White as White doesn’t even mention any of this in his exegesis of John 6.
Last example around 52:45 mark: Dr. Flowers reading side chat: “Leighton is not hearing what James is saying.” Leighton then says, “OK, I’m playing James White in front of me. Does that mean I don’t have have spiritual ears, or I’m not understanding what he is saying?”
Dr. Flowers asks this with a condescending tone as if Calvinists teach that to understand Calvinism you need spiritual ears. His implication is that Calvinists equate Calvinism with having spiritual ears to hear Christ. I say this because the video refers to John 8:43, at least James White references it, where Jesus says “Because you are not able to listen to My word.”
Also, around this mark Dr. Flowers says election is arbitrary, it’s a “divine lottery.” He knows Calvinists do not speak this way, even says in the video that we don’t like the word arbitrary, but yet he continues to use it. When has a prominent Calvinist ever referred to God’s election of sinners or anything else is Calvinism as a “divine lottery”?
Last one: Dr. Flowers says “You (I think he’s referring to White) ignore what we are saying and rehash the same old, same old, they cannot, they cannot come without addressing who cannot come and why they cannot.”
Here the conversation is about John 6. Dr. Flowers is saying that Calvinist have the same old answer to his objections. Yet, throughout most of the video Dr. Flowers does the same thing of “same old, same old,” he keeps referring to the audience of John 6 being hardened Israel from Romans.
Sorry last one, really: Dr. Flowers “Lydia, a worshipper of God. I want her eyes to be open to the truth of who is the Son. So, I’m going to give her to the Son.” I think this is around the 44:36 mark.
It is interesting that Dr. Flowers doesn’t mention that the text says God opened Lydia’s heart to hear the things Paul said. Why doesn’t he mention this? He accuse James White of not mentioning certain verses or part of verse, then does the same thing?
There’s much more where he calls Calvinists gnostics, he implies that we read divine decree into every text of Scripture, he’s “standing against Calvinism!” as we if we are some big threat to Christianity. Dr. Flowers condescending, mocking tone just increases further into the video. I know this is a long post, if you read it Eric, thanks for reading. I don’t want to get into a back and forth with you about this. If you respond to any of this, you can have the last word. This took about three hours and I wouldn’t’ have time to this again for at least another week. If you have any questions I can respond with an answer. If you watch the same videos and come to different conclusions or refute what I say, I’m ok with that I feel no need to respond or defend what I have said in this post. God bless.
Roland
First, one video had an image in the introduction that showed John Piper and RC Sproul shaking hands. Piper says, God brings about every evil for HIs own glory,” then RC responds, “Indeed! Let’s spread the word.”
That’s a misrepresentation of Calvinists spreading a message we do not spread
br.d
All you are saying here is that Calvinists don’t tell the WHOLE TRUTH :-]
br.d
All you are saying here is that Calvinists don’t tell the WHOLE TRUTH :-]
roland
The implication of Dr. Flowers cartoonish caricature of Calvinism is that we spread what Piper said as if it is Gospel. That’s what I am saying. We do not spread it as Gospel. I’ve never heard a prominent Calvinist go into a pulpit and begin to proclaim such a statement as Gospel.
I’m curios to know where Dr. Flowers got such an interaction between Dr. Piper and Dr. Sproul? Did they really have this conversation? It would be nice to have the source. Or maybe it is another cut and paste job by Dr. Flowers to misrepresent Calvinism? Oh, no, Dr. Flowers is nothing but gracious to Calvinists, he would never do such a thing! He would never put words into Calvinists’ mouths!
We don’t tell the whole truth? That’s another common tactic by non-calvinists. The accusation is that Calvinists are always hiding what they really mean, hiding what they are really saying, etc. How are we hiding what we believe? Do we have secret writings somewhere? If anything, Calvinists are very open about our beliefs. That’s why we have historically printed our confessions because we want people to know what we believe. We have 1000s upon 1000s of pieces of literature that openly declare what we believe. I don’t understand where this accusation comes from.
roland
The implication of Dr. Flowers cartoonish caricature of Calvinism is that we spread what Piper said as if it is Gospel.
Here is the pattern to which you are referring:
Person_A:
We say that the formula [ 2 x 6 = 12] is TRUE
Person_B:
Well then – it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS – for you – the formula [12 / 2 = 6] is also TRUE
Person_A:
NO!
You are misrepresenting us – we do not say that!
Roland asks, “When has a prominent Calvinist ever referred to God’s election of sinners or anything else is Calvinism as a “divine lottery”?”
There was a time when Dr. Flowers defined “arbitrary” as “according to the counsel of His will” with no input from anyone else. If he now defines it is a “divine lottery” then he is being unfair to Calvinists.
Roland
You’re right. There is no point in continuing to discuss with you because each of your examples, paragraph after paragraph, can be summarized simply like this: “I don’t like what Dr. Flowers is saying”. And you think that matters in rational discourse. You aren’t listening to what Dr. Flowers, or any Provisionist, is saying because you are offended. You don’t hold your own side, or yourself for that matter, to the same standard you hold Dr. Flowers because you are blinded by bias; this makes you hypocritical in your judgments. You’re unable to divorce your emotion and subjective dislike for the criticism of your dearly held theology from the actual ideas being expressed.
I understand how this sounds and I can’t help it, and I truly mean this sincerely a way of helping you have a more productive time online in the soteriological controversies: You need to mature a little and become more educated about theological traditions outside of Calvinism. It’s not a productive use of your time to write multiple paragraphs expressing your subjective dislikes. Not being objective in your standards decreases your credibility and will lead to no one valuing what you have to say.
Thanks for the reply, Eric. I wasn’t going to respond but I think what you wrote is unfair.
Eric
“I don’t like what Dr. Flowers is saying”. And you think that matters in rational discourse. You aren’t listening to what Dr. Flowers, or any Provisionist, is saying because you are offended.
roland:
I have been listening to Dr. Flowers. I have watched well over 20 of his videos, read a lot of the articles, and I read God’s Provision for All. I believe I understand what Dr. Flowers is saying. For you to say that I’m not listening is just wrong. I don’t get offended because somebody disagrees with my position. It’s not what Dr. Flowers is saying, it is what he is doing as I’ve pointed out in the past.
Eric
You don’t hold your own side, or yourself for that matter, to the same standard you hold Dr. Flowers because you are blinded by bias; this makes you hypocritical in your judgments.
roland
My “own side:” I try to hold my own side to the same standard. I agree with what others have said about James White, he is arrogant. I’m holding Dr. Flowers to the standard that he holds himself. I don’t see that I am holding Dr. Flowers to another standard. He set it. He opens his videos with a comment along the lines of how much he respects John Piper, RC Sproul, etc. then he misrepresents them.
I gave you examples from the videos I watched but you just accused me of being subjective and not liking what Dr. Flowers had to say.
Eric
You need to mature a little and become more educated about theological traditions outside of Calvinism.
roland
True, I do need to mature. I’m not a fully mature man, I admit there’s room for growth. I act like a fool sometimes. I try to be mature on this site as I don’t resort to insults or name calling. In other posts you have called me a liar. Have I ever called you a derogatory name? Have I ever intentionally insulted you with direct language?
Regarding my immaturity: you wrote in another post that my apology was half-hearted. I agree, it did sound half-hearted, so I restated my half-hearted apology and sought to clearly affirm a whole-hearted apology. I agreed with you in another post of some of the hyperbolic language I used was unfair and wrong. I wrote that I would refrain from doing so in future posts. Do immature people apologize? Do immature people admit when they’re wrong and turn from their wrong behavior?
Regarding non-calvinist traditions: I’ve spent 10 years as a non-calvinist Christian, reading non-calvinist authors, preachers, teachers, etc. I’m here on soteriology101 to learn about provisionism, I read God’s Provision for All, I’ve listen to Dr. Flowers videos, read articles, etc. I’m trying to learn more. Do I fully understand Dr. Flowers and other provisionists? No. But I’ll continue to watch and read as I move from general beliefs to the nuances of provisionism.
Eric
Not being objective in your standards decreases your credibility and will lead to no one valuing what you have to say.
roland
Your statement is true as objectivity, credibility, and value do go together. I try to be objective as I possible can. I admit I have bias but I reject your belief that I am blinded by bias.
I’ve tried to be friendly on this site, I’ve thanked Brian Wagner for his thoughtful responses to my inquires and have expressed my gratitude for his kindness in our discussions. I’ve also thanked Heather for her responses to me as well. I’ve also been grateful for my interactions with fromoverhere (FOH) and br.d as well.
Eric, you seem to be very irate with me. Where ever have I offended you I apologize for such words or behavior. I was at least expecting you to mention that I tried to restate my apology wholeheartedly. If it is my accusations that Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism and Calvinists that offends you I tried to provide evidence as to why I came to my conclusions. I’m not angry with anybody on this site, I don’t hate non-calvinists just disagree with them. I have not called anybody a derogatory name like liar. I had to respond as I believe your response was unfair You wrote things that I don’t believe I’m guilty of. Thanks for reading.
Roland
“Eric, you seem to be very irate with me. Where ever have I offended you I apologize for such words or behavior. I was at least expecting you to mention that I tried to restate my apology wholeheartedly. If it is my accusations that Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism and Calvinists that offends you I tried to provide evidence as to why I came to my conclusions. I’m not angry with anybody on this site, I don’t hate non-calvinists just disagree with them. I have not called anybody a derogatory name like liar.”
I’m not above emotion. Despite what I normally like to think, I’m an emotional person. But I’m not irate. That’s not the emotion I have while engaging with you. Falsehood drives me crazy; I become quickly frustrated by falsehood. For instance, when you say Dr. Flowers is knowingly misrepresenting Calvinism, that he was never a Calvinist despite his claim to have been one formerly, and that “his entire life and ministry is dedicated to tearing down Calvinism”…what are you calling him? You’re calling him a liar. So, yes, technically, I have not seen you say the words “Dr. Flowers is a liar”, but you are calling him a liar all the same.
If you want to get technical, I don’t recall calling you a liar either. I pointed out the specific lies you are guilty of.
“My “own side:” I try to hold my own side to the same standard. I agree with what others have said about James White, he is arrogant”
But you don’t agree that this disqualifies him as a trustworthy source of criticism of Dr. Flowers. And you aren’t over on The Dividing Line socials or blog criticizing him for being arrogant. That’s your double standard. You consider White’s arrogance to be some sort of breach of decorum and nothing more. But when Dr. Flowers makes memes poking fun at Calvinism and makes jokes about Calvinism, you call it “unfair” count it as an example of his nefarious intent. That’s what makes you hypocritical.
“I have been listening to Dr. Flowers. I have watched well over 20 of his videos, read a lot of the articles, and I read God’s Provision for All. I believe I understand what Dr. Flowers is saying.”
You would be one of only a handful of Calvinists to accurately express our view of Romans 9, John 6, Eph 1, etc. I’m open to hearing you do so.
Also, watching his videos and “listening” are not the same thing. One can hear without listening. More on this below…
“In other posts you have called me a liar. Have I ever called you a derogatory name? Have I ever intentionally insulted you with direct language?”
and then
“Do immature people apologize? Do immature people admit when they’re wrong and turn from their wrong behavior?”
So, which one is it? In the first quote, you suggested me calling you a liar (which I don’t remember doing) was inappropriate. But then, in the next quote, you admit your apology for lying was half-hearted. So which is it? Have you apologized for lying and, therefore, me pointing out the lies was completely appropriate? Or did you not lie at all and I was wrong in my accusation of dishonesty?
“I gave you examples from the videos I watched but you just accused me of being subjective and not liking what Dr. Flowers had to say.”
You’re right, it was just an accusation of subjectivity and I didn’t show my work. After this last response, I’m more hopeful that you are open to dialogue and so I’ll take each of your examples and show why your criticisms are completely subjective and accurately summarized as “I don’t like what Dr. Flowers is saying”. Here we go…
“First example around the 18 minute mark: Dr. Flowers says, “Oh, these people were born of the devil.” He said this as to imply that this is what James White really believes the text says yet James never says such a thing. James speaking about the text doesn’t say what Dr. Flowers says James says. James says, “You can’t hear because you are not of God.” This is in reference to John 8.”
Roland, c’mon man, if Jesus is telling the Pharisees “You can’t hear because you are not of God”, then what is Jesus saying they are “of”? The devil. Jesus directly makes this connection when He tells them “You are from below”. This is OBVIOUSLY how James White understands this verse. The Pharisees claim to be “of God” but they are not listening to Jesus because they are not “of God” and are instead “from below”.
Then, all it takes is a small logically deduced step…
A. Jesus says Pharisees are “of the devil/from below”
B. James White believes the Reformed doctrine of Total Moral Inability from Birth is true
C. James White believes B. is why the Pharisees do not believe in Jesus
Conclusion: James White believes the Pharisees were born of the devil
Since you are blinded by bias, though, you see Dr. Flowers as putting words in James White’s mouth instead of making a simple logical deduction. Dr. Flowers could be dead wrong about his deduction, and you’re free to say he is, but making logical deductions is not the same as claiming what James White has said.
Your 2nd example: “His implication is that Calvinists don’t believe text that talk about believing and being righteous. Dr. Flowers also says Calvinists “hyperfocus on just ‘no one is righteous, no not one.” I don’t even remember James White bringing this up from Romans 3”
So you don’t remember it therefore Dr. Flowers must be wrong? Do you see your bias at work here? Based upon your own memory you conclude Dr. Flowers must be putting words in James White’s mouth.
And no, that’s not the implication. You’re putting words in Dr. Flowers’ mouth, hearing him as claiming Calvinists don’t believe in the Scriptures when what he’s doing is making the argument they are inconsistent and unbalanced when it comes to the Scriptures. I get that you don’t like that criticism, but he’s not telling you what you believe.
“Third example around 33:17 Dr. Flowers says “You have nothing within all of these text that teach the Calvinistic presupposition of this quote unquote sovereign decree.” Again, Dr. Flowers is putting words into James White as White doesn’t even mention any of this in his exegesis of John 6.”
This is the bias test, Roland. Put this same standard on James White and see if you would criticize White the same way. Is James White restricted from only saying words the Provisionists first say? Or is James White free to make inductions and/or deductions FROM the words of Provisionists and their writings?
Likewise, since James White believes in a sovereign decree, and believes the God has sovereignly decreed which individuals would be the sheep of John 6, why is it inappropriate for Dr. Flowers to criticize these ideas in light of the text of John 6 even if James White didn’t use the words “sovereign decree” in his exegesis of John 6? If it’s just because you don’t like it, then fine, say that, but if James White is free to use words deduced/induced from what Provs believe, why isn’t Dr. Flowers as well?
“Last example around 52:45 mark: Dr. Flowers reading side chat: “Leighton is not hearing what James is saying.” Leighton then says, “OK, I’m playing James White in front of me. Does that mean I don’t have have spiritual ears, or I’m not understanding what he is saying?””
The irony of this one. You are objecting to Dr. Flowers explicitly defending himself from the accusation you are currently leveling against him right now, and this is offensive to you. Amazing. Your criticism here is telling:
“Dr. Flowers asks this with a condescending tone as if Calvinists teach that to understand Calvinism you need spiritual ears. His implication is that Calvinists equate Calvinism with having spiritual ears to hear Christ.”
If you are suggesting that Dr. Flowers’ response is invalid because of his condescending tone, then this is EXACTLY the double standard and hypocrisy I’m talking about on full display. Are James White’s teachings and responses invalid because of HIS constantly condescending tone?
Your bias is on full display here too. You assume Dr. Flowers is pulling this “spiritual ears” idea out of thin air. Could he have possibly heard a Reformed teacher (or twenty) explicitly teach that acceptance of Calvinism is a sign of spiritual maturity?
Eric, thanks for the reply.
I’m not above emotion. Despite what I normally like to think, I’m an emotional person. But I’m not irate. That’s not the emotion I have while engaging with you. Falsehood drives me crazy; I become quickly frustrated by falsehood.
roland
I’m not above emotion either. I become quickly frustrated by misrepresentations. That’s why I get frustrated with Dr. Flowers, especially since he says he is a former Calvinist. If anybody should make a fair presentation of a belief or practice, it should be those who used to hold that belief or practice and no longer do. I believe all of as Christians know what it was like before Christ saved us. I can make a fair presentation of what it is like not to be a Christian.
Eric
If you want to get technical, I don’t recall calling you a liar either.
Roland
You did. After one of my comments in my post you simply typed the word: Liar. I’m not going to hold it against you or believe your less credible or sincere because you called me liar. I’ve done the same, discussions can be emotional and as a Christian I still struggle with my flesh.
Eric
But you don’t agree that this disqualifies him as a trustworthy source of criticism of Dr. Flowers. And you aren’t over on The Dividing Line socials or blog criticizing him for being arrogant. That’s your double standard.
Roland
I don’t think I have questioned whether a person’s character affects their being a trustworthy source of criticism. As far as Dr. Flowers is concerned, do I question his trustworthiness? On his claim of being a former Calvinist, I don’t see sufficient evidence that he was ever a Calvinist. However, I am not completely closed on this belief. Let’s say I see a video where Dr. Flowers is properly explaining Calvinism, then I take that belief back on the basis that I have seen sufficient evidence that his claim is true. On all other things related to provisionism I don’t question his trustworthiness.
Eric
But when Dr. Flowers makes memes poking fun at Calvinism and makes jokes about Calvinism, you call it “unfair” count it as an example of his nefarious intent. That’s what makes you hypocritical.
roland
It is hard for me believe what Dr. Flowers says sometimes based on his actions. His poking fun as Calvinists and Calvinism frustrates me. Does Dr. Flowers really believe Calvinism is dangerous to God’s character and His Word? If so, why does he joke about it. If he believes that winning somebody out of Calvinism is important, why does he poke fun at us? That’s no way to win somebody over. I don’t understand why he does it. As a Christian, I believe non believers are in danger, I don’t make fun of their spiritual condition.
Eric
You would be one of only a handful of Calvinists to accurately express our view of Romans 9, John 6, Eph 1, etc. I’m open to hearing you do so.
roland
Best as I can and it will probably be insufficient. On Romans 9, I believe that Dr. Flowers believes that the chapter is not soteriological but functional. That is, all that God is doing with the Jews is hardening them so that the Gospel will be carried out. I believe Dr. Flowers believes that election is not of individuals but is corporate. On John 6, Jesus is referring to His disciples not to all believers, the Jews who are not believing are hardened Israel. Besides that I can’t remember anything else. Ephesians 1 I remember watching a video where Dr. Flowers says that the verses teach that the election is “in Christ.” In other words, God’s election is about the method or manner of salvation not the election of individuals. The is all off the top of my head.
Eric
But then, in the next quote, you admit your apology for lying was half-hearted. So which is it?
roland
No, I did not admit that my apology was half-hearted. You said it sounded half-hearted, I apologized again with more clarity as I did not want to offer a half-hearted apology. You were right about my hyperbole but I don’t think I have lied about Dr. Flowers.
Eric
You’re right, it was just an accusation of subjectivity and I didn’t show my work. After this last response, I’m more hopeful that you are open to dialogue and so I’ll take each of your examples and show why your criticisms are completely subjective and accurately summarized as “I don’t like what Dr. Flowers is saying”.
roland
I don’t deny my subjectivity. The best way to handle this part of our discussion is for you to watch the video if you have time. If you just respond to my comments then I don’t think you will have a clear understanding of what I’m responding to. For this reason, I’m going to skip over your responses to my responses to Dr. Flowers in the video.
Eric
If you are suggesting that Dr. Flowers’ response is invalid because of his condescending tone, then this is EXACTLY the double standard and hypocrisy I’m talking about on full display.
roland
No, I am not suggesting that Dr. Flowers response is INVALID because of his tone. I try to look to a person’s arguments to examine them for truth before I look to their character or actions. We all fail in living up to our standards because we are sinners. The reason I get so frustrated with Dr. Flowers is that he says things like Calvinists are my brothers in Christ, let’s be fair to each other, etc. but then he does the same things he despises. Dr. White never does this, he doesn’t care about decorum, at least from what I know of him, so don’t ask me to hold Dr. White to this standard, he doesn’t have it.
That frustrates me. I would respect Dr. Flowers more if he just came out and said that he really doesn’t believe Calvinists are Christians.We preach a false and heretical gospel. Then I can really know where he stands. At least it would seem like a firm conviction instead of the vicissitude I get from him now.
Eric
Your bias is on full display here too. You assume Dr. Flowers is pulling this “spiritual ears” idea out of thin air. Could he have possibly heard a Reformed teacher (or twenty) explicitly teach that acceptance of Calvinism is a sign of spiritual maturity?
roland
It is probable that he heard it from a Calvinist. I’ve heard Calvinists make some outlandish claims. But from watching the video it does not appear that was the case but I could be wrong. Eric, thanks for reading, I don’t know if I’ll respond back if you respond.
Eric writes, “Dr. Flowers never says anything to the effect of “What Calvinists REALLY believe is..”.
There is a reason for this. Dr. Flowers knows that Totally Depravity in Calvinism exists where faith is lacking. He will vehemently deny “Total Inability” but if you listen to everything he says, he always refers to “grace enabled faith” either in those words or similar words. If Dr. Flowers were to say, “Calvinists REALLY believe that lack of faith produces Total Depravity,” he would have a difficult time arguing against it because he appears to believe the same thing. It may be that Dr. Flowers really doesn’t understand Calvinism – which makes sense considering some of the arguments he makes – but if we grant that he really does understand Calvinism, then some of the things he says are really confused. So, if Dr. Flowers were to say anything to the effect of “What Calvinists REALLY believe,” he would have to address the confusing arguments he makes. I have noticed this with his comments of Total Inability (or Total Depravity) and the relationship of God’s omniscience to determinism.
” If Dr. Flowers were to say, “Calvinists REALLY believe that lack of faith produces Total Depravity,” he would have a difficult time arguing against it because he appears to believe the same thing.”
That’s a great point that I have been making here.
“It may be that Dr. Flowers really doesn’t understand Calvinism – which makes sense considering some of the arguments he makes – but if we grant that he really does understand Calvinism, then some of the things he says are really confused.”
I have watched over 20 of Leighton’s videos, read one of his books and I have to the same conclusion as you. Completely agree, I also drew this conclusion from his arguments. I mentioned in another post that I don’t Leighton was ever Reformed but he was probably a TULIP Calvinist but beyond that he does’t seem to demonstrate sufficient knowledge to call himself a Calvinist or even Reformed.
“So, if Dr. Flowers were to say anything to the effect of “What Calvinists REALLY believe,” he would have to address the confusing arguments he makes. I have noticed this with his comments of Total Inability (or Total Depravity) and the relationship of God’s omniscience to determinism.”
Exactly. Dr. Flowers doesn’t seem to have a firm stance on either God’s determinism or omniscience. He seems to appeal to Molinism but I’ve heard him say that he believes God has full knowledge. Then he’ll say something like God’s knowledge about creaturely freewill decision in any possibility. It’s confusing. Even if he said he still working this out then I’d have no problem with that. That’s sound more honest then what is currently communicating.
Roland, would you mind explaining how your comment “I agree that anyone can believe in Jesus” fits with your comment “unless God gives a new heart, you will not seek God” and your denial of “since God calls everyone to believe, then we must all be able to believe” and your agreement with Rhutchin that “Certainly, God has determined who will be saved and who will not…”?
How can you say “anyone can believe” and yet hold those other beliefs? (This isn’t rhetorical. I’m asking seriously.) If the non-elect are never given a new heart (by God) then how can they believe in Jesus? Do you define “anyone” as all people, elect and non-elect, or as “only the elect”? If it’s “all people,” then how can you, as a Calvinist, say that the non-elect can believe in Jesus, when they will not be given a new heart or the faith to believe? But if it’s “only the elect,” then how can you say “anyone”?
Also, I said: “CALVINIST TWIST: “No, God created most people to be sinners so that He could show off His justice by punishing them in hell for sinning.”
And you replied: “I’ve never heard a Calvinist say God shows off. That’s a very irreverent manner to speak about God.”
I agree with you about it being irreverent. Maybe you should tell that to my Calvinist pastor’s adult Calvinist son who wrote a post about how – after two weeks of contemplating why God would predestine people to hell – came to the conclusion that God predestined people to be unrepentant sinners because He wanted to have sinners to punish so that He could show off His justice so that He could get glory for it and worship Himself for being so just.
Heather,
As far as the “show off” it is just the sound of it that is a problem for them. If you say “demonstrate His justice” then you can created 95% of humanity for that torture.
As for the “anyone can believe” many new, young Calvinists (after being pulled into the idea with books) will continue to say “We preach to all cuz we dont know who Christ died for.” When they develop the idea they will often say “Christ died for you. He is offering you a way out of your sin…to be right with God.”
Often they will slip like this. Piper and MacArthur do it all the time. I have been in the audience when Calvinists do this (although when I was in MacArthur’s church it was before he became a Calvinists).
The problem is that a Calvinist CANNOT preach to a random crowd, “Christ died for you!” They should say “Christ may have died for you!” but….nah…never heard one do that.
Limited Atonement clearly states that man is NOT refusing God’s offer…cuz God is not even offering.
So you have to reinterpret all those Bible verses that state that people are “refusing Him.” Ha! No one is refusing an offer they never received!
FOH writes, “The problem is that a Calvinist CANNOT preach to a random crowd, “Christ died for you!” They should say “Christ may have died for you!” but….nah…never heard one do that.”
Calvinists can say that God loves both Jews and gentiles, black and white, rich and poor, etc. Christ paid the penalty for sin. For anyone to tell any individual that Christ died for him would be a lie if God has no intent to save that person. God already knows who will be saved and who will not and knew this before He created the world. As Jesus said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ”
Then, “Limited Atonement clearly states that man is NOT refusing God’s offer…cuz God is not even offering.”
Total Depravity says that anyone without faith refuses God’s command to repent and believe the gospel. Limited atonement says that God has no intent to save all people.
Then, “So you have to reinterpret all those Bible verses that state that people are “refusing Him.” Ha! No one is refusing an offer they never received!”
No reinterpretation necessary. Just accept the Calvinist distinction – People without faith always refuse the gospel; people with faith always accept the gospel. Of course, FOH has already rejected that distinction.
rhutchin
Calvinists can say that God loves both Jews and gentiles, black and white, rich and poor, etc.
br.d
Yes – but they can’t say what KIND of love Calvin’s god has for them
He might have a KIND of love that creates/designs them specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
That is the KIND of love he has for the MANY of the human race.
He has a different KIND of love for a FEW.
rhutchin: “Calvinists can say that God loves both Jews and gentiles, black and white, rich and poor, etc.”
br.d: “Yes – but they can’t say what KIND of love Calvin’s god has for them”
I think they can – its the Greek, “agape.”
However, the love God has for the individual is a different love for those to whom He extends mercy than for those to whom He extends justice. At least, the one who received justice would argue that it was a different love from his perspective.
rhutchin
Calvinists can say that God loves both Jews and gentiles, black and white, rich and poor, etc.”
br.d: “Yes – but they can’t say what KIND of love Calvin’s god has for them.
The KIND of love Calvin’s god has for the “MANY” is the KIND of love that creates/designs them specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
The love Calvin’s god has for the “FEW” is a different KIND of love.
rhutchin
I think they can – its the Greek, “agape.”
br.d
Well – that provides a wonderful example of how many terms in Calvinism have NON-NORMATIVE meanings.
In this case the term “agape”
Another confirmation that Dr. Flowers is correct when he says: “Calvinist’s use the same words as everyone else does – they just have a different dictionary” :-]
rhutchin: “I think they can – its the Greek, “agape.”
br.d: “Well – that provides a wonderful example of how many terms in Calvinism have NON-NORMATIVE meanings.
In this case the term “agape”
I don’t see a non-normative meaning in the Calvinist understanding of agape. If Calvinists say that God loves both Jews and gentiles, black and white, rich and poor, etc. and then God saves Jews and gentiles, black and white, rich and poor, etc., then agape love expresses God’s love for the person in saving them. That seems to be a pretty normal understanding of agape. The love God has for people He does not save would not be agape. So, the real question is, “If non-Calvinists tell each individual that God loves them, what kind of love do they say God has for them?” Certainly not agape.
rhutchin: “I think they can – its the Greek, “agape.”
br.d
Well – that provides a wonderful example of how many terms in Calvinism have NON-NORMATIVE meanings.
In this case the term “agape”
Which in this case – entails creating/designing the majority of one’s creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for ones good pleasure
rhutchin
I don’t see a non-normative meaning in the Calvinist understanding of agape.
br.d
I wouldn’t expect you to! :-]
Heather asks, “Roland, would you mind explaining how your comment “I agree that anyone can believe in Jesus” fits with your comment “unless God gives a new heart, you will not seek God”
I think Roland means, that he agrees that anyone can believe in Jesus provided that they hear the gospel and receive faith through that hearing. If a person never hears about Jesus, he cannot believe in Jesus.
Then, “…and your denial of “since God calls everyone to believe, then we must all be able to believe” and your agreement with Rhutchin that “Certainly, God has determined who will be saved and who will not…”? ”
God commands everyone to repent and believe the gospel. There is then a general call made through the preacher to everyone physically hearing the gospel preached. However, as the preacher only plants and waters, whatever increase is attained is because God imparts faith to some but not to others so that God determines who will be saved and who will not.
Then, “Also, I said: “CALVINIST TWIST: “No, God created most people to be sinners so that He could show off His justice by punishing them in hell for sinning.””
As God withholds faith from all people at birth and the only way to receive faith is by hearing the gospel, then God created all people to be sinners. Of course, no sinner is able to enter heaven so no injustice is done to anyone denied entrance into heaven, and the punishment is just.
Thanks for the reply Heather, and the question, I will do my best to answer as I struggle to communicate what I’m saying well. If you have any questions about response and answer, please reply, I’ll do my best to answer, thanks.
Heather
Roland, would you mind explaining how your comment “I agree that anyone can believe in Jesus” fits with your comment “unless God gives a new heart, you will not seek God” and your denial of “since God calls everyone to believe, then we must all be able to believe” and your agreement with Rhutchin that “Certainly, God has determined who will be saved and who will not…”?
As far as anyone can believe, I believe it is the biblical teaching that anyone can believe. There is not requirement for belief besides believing. To many non-calvinists this sounds like a contradict, a paradox, double mindedness, double speak, but to us as Calvinists we believe any can be believe. However, I also said that unless God gives them a new heart, no one can seek God.
Let me use an example from John 3, Jesus and Nicodemus. In this conversation we learn some very important truths, God loves the world, Nicodemus is Jew, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born from above (born again), and much more. So when I read these verses I hear Jesus saying God’s love is to the whole world, beyond Israel and its border, he speaks to a Jew who would have obviously believed in God’s love for Israel, and it takes the work of the Holy Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. We can discern from other Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is not given to everyone. So without the Holy Spirit no one can enter the kingdom of God. As far as anyone, I would further point to evidence as the classes of people who came to believe in Christ; slaves, Jews, Gentiles, woman, all types. So the kingdom of God is limited but while anyone can believe, it is only for those who believe. I hope that’s making sense.
Heather
How can you say “anyone can believe” and yet hold those other beliefs? (This isn’t rhetorical. I’m asking seriously.)
I believe you are being sincere in your question. I tried to explain above. I would clarify by saying that all people can believe and I don’t mean that there is an inherent capacity in our nature to believe. I just mean its open to all people. But only some will believe. Yes, the willing to believe is only granted to the elect. I know I used to believe it was contradictory and foolish but I believe there is a biblical argument for the Calvinist position.
Heather
I agree with you about it being irreverent. Maybe you should tell that to my Calvinist pastor’s adult Calvinist son who wrote a post about how – after two weeks of contemplating why God would predestine people to hell – came to the conclusion that God predestined people to be unrepentant sinners because He wanted to have sinners to punish so that He could show off His justice so that He could get glory for it and worship Himself for being so just.
I don’t know all Calvinists so I know there are some extreme Calvinists out there. I’ve met them like one who told me that only Calvinists are the true Christians, all others are not real Christians. I reject that on the basis that Calvinism is not the measure of being in Christ. How a person comes to believe is not as important as believing and trusting in Christ.
The Bible does speak of God being glorified in all things or as Romans 11:33 says For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
So if glory is forever to Him of whom and through whom and to whom are all things, that is God, then is there ever time where glory is not to Him? To me the answer is no. God is always glorified at all times. Yes, I believe God is always glorified, His justice is displayed at all times but also His love, mercy, kindness, goodness, etc.
As Calvinist, I do not contemplate God predestining people to hell. We don’t believe God worship himself. I don’t agree with the Calvinist who said that, I’ve never heard any pastors or teacher in my church say that. But I’m not doubting what you said as Calvinists are not a monolithic group. We have some crazies, I’ve been called a crazy as well but not only for being a Calvinist. Thanks for reading.
Anymore questions, please ask, I’ll try to respond with more clarity, I won’t take offense if you ask a rhetorical question, and I won’t be offended if you believe I’m wrong.
Well, Roland, I do want to say thank you for taking the time to try to explain it to me. But it doesn’t make it more clear to me. In fact, yours and Rhutchin’s answers only make it worse, in my way of thinking. It sounds to me like long, fancy, convoluted answers as a way of saying “Yes, anyone can believe … but, no, not anyone can believe.”
Clearly, you both mean that “anyone” equals “all types of people” … and not what commonsense would tell us that anyone means (“all individual people”). Therefore, it makes it deceptive for Calvinists to say “anyone can believe,” knowing that most people would interpret “anyone” to mean “all individual people.”
And I would suggest that Calvinists do this on purpose, strategically omitting the “types of” so that they can say “all … people.” I think that, in their minds, they are not lying by omitting “types of” because at least the words they do use – “all … people” – are true.
But as I said, I do thank you for taking the time to give a thoughtful, thorough, respectful answer. For that, you have my respect as well. 🙂
[And to Fromoverhere: I agree with you and think your reply makes more sense. But I’m sure you already realize that. Thanks!]
Heather:
Calvinists: “Anyone can believe!!” As long as they are chosen.
Henry Ford: you can have your Model T in any color you want…as long as it’s black!
How egotistical of you Roland! Really!
You know better than any former Calvinists!
How about Josh Harris, personal choice of CJ Mahaney to take over a Calvinist church for 11 years….not denying all aspects of Calvinism.
Really. What a statement!
Hey FOH, good to hear from you again.
You wrote:
How egotistical of you Roland! Really!
You know better than any former Calvinists!
I wrote: I’m not trying to be egotistical. If I came off as so, I apologize. I’m just saying that I cannot believe that Leighton is a former Calvinist as he seems unable to articulate Calvinist doctrine. I’m curious to know how deep into Calvinism, Reformed theology, Leighton went. If he only held to the five points, TULIP, and rejected other doctrines of Calvinism, I can understand how he would not be able to articulate Calvinism. He seems to have a shallow understanding. But I’m probably wrong as I did not know Leighton when he was a Calvinist and I’ve never heard his testimony.
Thanks for the reply.
Well done, brother to back down from that. I appreciate it.
I can call you brother cant I even though I am Christ-following former Calvinist? I hope so!
Dont forget to answer my questions as to whether yesterday’s abortions in your city were what God wanted.
No gotcha, just a sincere question.
FOH to Roland asks, “Dont forget to answer my questions as to whether yesterday’s abortions in your city were what God wanted.”
Yes – according to Ephesians 1, “God works all things after the counsel of his will; ” then, 1 Kings 22, “Now therefore, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and Yahweh has spoken evil concerning you. ” Then proverbs 15, “Yahweh’s eyes are everywhere, Keeping watch on the evil and the good. ” Then Proverbs 16, “Yahweh has made everything for its own end—Yes, even the wicked for the day of evil. ” Then Romans 9, “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, …”
I dont get you guys. If last year’s abortions were God-wanted, God-decreed, God-desired, then what are we even talking about?
If, for you, all the evil in the world that happens is what God wants…..then what is your point about anything?
You got nothing guys. Eeew…. that is a conflicted, ugly God you are proposing.
I will have to be done now….and I forgot, when I reengaged yesterday with Roland, that it was the same Roland that I had dis-engaged with before. Bye…..
FOH writes, “If, for you, all the evil in the world that happens is what God wants…..then what is your point about anything?”
Maybe you tore these verses out of your Bible also.
– “The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil.”
– “By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil.”
– “The highway of the upright turns aside from evil; whoever guards his way preserves his life.”
– “Be not envious of evil men, nor desire to be with them,”
– “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely.”
– “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.’”
If there were no evil, these verses would mean nothing.
rhutchin
If there were no evil, these verses would mean nothing.
br.d
And according to Calvinism – if there were not evil – then a critical PART of Calvin’s god’s divine glory would be missing.
Jon Edwards
-quote
God’s glory would be very imperfect both because the PARTS of divine glory would not shine forth as the other do……nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
Great response. I’ve brought up those verses with others on here and they just flat out reject them. According to a person on here, 1 Kings 22 God did not put the lying spirit in their mouth, they just volunteered.
FOH writes, “If, for you, all the evil in the world that happens is what God wants…..then what is your point about anything?”
Rhutchin: “If there were no evil, these verses would mean nothing.”
It seems to me that FOH isn’t denying that there’s evil in the world or that God wants us to oppose evil. He’s saying that it’s pointless for Calvinists to say God wants/causes/predestines all evil but then to still be bothered by evil and to act like we have a choice about it.
And Rhutchin’s saying that they should oppose evil because God commands us to. Yet, whenever evil happens, it’s because Calvi-god had a secret, unspoken command (which contradicted his spoken, revealed command) where he actually wanted the person to commit the evil he commanded us not to do. Because he’s pleased by it and gets glory from it. Schizophrenic!
So, in Calvinism, God ordains (preplans, controls) all that we do, whether we sin or obey, and then he controls/causes all people’s reactions to what happens, either making them horrified by evil or happy with it or whatever. What a silly, pointless charade by Calvi-god and Calvinists, acting as if anything we feel or think makes any difference at all. If we have no ability to have our own thoughts or feelings because Calvi-god controls it all, then it makes no difference at all how we respond to evil, because it’s all preplanned and controlled by Calvi-god and we’re simply acting out the prewritten role we have no choice about.
[Why are you even here on this website, Rhutchin and Filemon, arguing for Calvinism – when Calvi-god created this website for his glory and pleasure, when he created us to oppose Calvinism for his glory and pleasure, and when we are just doing what he’s causing us to do? We have no control over our thoughts about Calvinism or the fact that we speak against it. So why are you here opposing us, opposing what Calvi-god predestined for his glory? Oh wait, let me guess: You have no control either over what you do. Calvi-god predestined for you to oppose us. He’s forcing you to leave comments on this site, for his pleasure and glory. Right? And he predestines what people think when they read our comments and yours. And he’s already predestined their destinies and they are just acting out their prewritten roles, so it really makes no difference what they think when they read this stuff. It’s all been predestined. We do not control our own thoughts or decisions. Whether we oppose or support Calvinism makes no difference at all because both are equally glorifying to Calvi-god, and it all happens exactly as he planned it, and it won’t change anyone’s destiny because their destinies have all been preplanned too. So really, if you left this site, never leaving any more comments in support of Calvinism, it would have the exact same effect on what happens in the end: Nothing! No effect! It all works out the same, with or without you. Makes life and everything we do a little pointless, doesn’t it?]
In Calvinism, those verses Rhutchin listed mean nothing because whether we oppose or celebrate evil has already been predestined … and because Calvi-god controls our thoughts and feelings and actions … and because he has two conflicting Wills where he regularly commands one thing but wants/causes the opposite to happen (whatever happens – obedience or disobedience – was his Will, so it doesn’t really matter which we “choose”) … and because evil is no different than good in Calvi-god’s eyes (he predestined both for his glory and pleasure).
I think a big problem in Calvinism is that they conflate God’s Will/desires with His plans. God’s plans will happen, in one way or another. He can use anything and everything to work His plans out, working our decisions (our self-chosen obedience or our self-chosen disobedience) into His plans. If someone refuses to obey, He can find someone else who will or He can work the disobedience into His plans. He’s got many ways of eventually getting His plans accomplished, and He does this with and through mankind. Such as, His plan was to get the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan, and His desire/Will was to get that first generation into Canaan. But the first group rebelled and grumbled against Him on the journey, and so He let them die off in the desert and took the next generation into Canaan. His desire did not get accomplished because that first generation refused to obey Him, but His plan got accomplished because He found a way to work it out in spite of their disobedience. And He didn’t have to control the people’s actions or thoughts to do this. They chose to rebel, and so He simply bypassed them and used the next generation to fulfill His plans, because they were willing to obey. He will work His plans out one way or another, but we can miss out on them if we choose to disobey. He lets us choose our part in the plans He wants to accomplish. If we reject Him and disobey, He’ll either work our disobedience into His plans or He’ll find someone else who will obey. Either way, His plans will get done.
But God’s Will/desires are another thing. These are things He wants to have happen, but He doesn’t always force it or cause it to happen. He leaves it up to us, for the most part, to either do or not do these things. He wills that all people are saved, that orphans and widows are taken care of, that we do good to silence the ignorant talk of foolish people, that we rejoice and are thankful and pray always, etc. But do these things always happen? No! Because He doesn’t always cause His Will/desires to happen. His plans will get done eventually, but He allows us to either do or not do what He Wills/desires. [And this is something Calvinists simply cannot accept: that an all-powerful God would allow people to have a real choice, that He would allow us to affect what happens in our lives and on this earth. They think that since God is all-powerful, then He must use His power all the time to control everything, or else He can’t be God. But I say it’s a very dangerous thing to tell God how He has to act in order to be God! If He’s God – all-powerful and sovereign above all – then shouldn’t He get to decide how to use His sovereignty and power? And if He wants to voluntarily limit His power, to allow people to make real choices that have real consequences, then “Who are you, O Calvinist, to talk back to God? Doesn’t the Potter have the right to make people with free-will, if He wants to?” He is so powerful and wise and sovereign that He can work all things into His plans, even things He doesn’t preplan, cause, or want. Or are Calvinists going to say that He’s not that powerful, wise, and sovereign?)
Calvinists conflate His plans with His Will/desires, lumping it all into one thing. And therefore, they conclude that everything He wants/wills will happen because He always does what He plans (as if His plans are the same thing as His Will/desires), and that everything that happens is because God planned it, wanted it, willed it. Not true! God will work His plans out eventually, but not everything happens because God planned it, wanted it, or willed it. He leaves it up to us to do what He wills/wants, and He allows us to work with Him in getting His plans done or to oppose His plans (and then pay the price).
Just because God works His plans out (biblical) does not mean that everything that happens is because God planned it (Calvinism, unbiblical). Just because God wills/wants things to happen (biblical) doesn’t mean that everything that happens is because God willed/wanted it (Calvinism, unbiblical). In these things, Calvinist reasoning goes like this: Since all monkeys are animals, then all animals must be monkeys. And this causes a lot of problems in their theology. A lot of contradictions they can’t fix or explain away.
Regarding evil and sin, Calvinism says that God has two wills that contradict each other: a revealed one where He commands us to not do something and an unspoken one where He commands us to do it. And they think this is perfectly okay … because “God is sovereign. Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” But this is not a logical or acceptable response for saying that God commands one thing but causes the opposite, that God causes us to do the very sins He told us not to do (and then He punishes us for it). Calvinism does far too much damage to God’s character and the gospel to be able to fix it with a response that basically amounts to “Just shut up and accept what we teach you!”
God does not have two conflicting wills. But, as Tony Evans says, He does have a conditional Will and and unconditional one. God has an unconditional Will, things He’s planned that He will work out, with or without our cooperation: He created the world, was born as a human, died on the cross, will redeem the world in the end and do away with evil, will make us all stand before the judgment seat, etc. These are plans that are not conditional on us.
But He also has a conditional Will, things that He wants to do but He leaves it up to us to bring it about, to obey or disobey, to accept or reject: He wants all people to be saved but He leaves it up to us to accept or reject Jesus, He wants all people to seek Him and He gives us enough evidence of Himself to show He’s real but He leaves it up to us to want/seek Him or to go our own way, He wants us to be thankful … to pray … to obey …. to take care of the less fortunate … to share the gospel, etc., but He leaves all that up to us, etc. The blessings and effects of obedience are conditional on our decisions, on what we choose to do. And the choice is ours. He doesn’t force us to choose what we do. He can take whatever we do and work it into His plans, for good, but He doesn’t preplan/force us to do what we do. This is, biblically, how God is sovereign over all but we are still responsible for our choices.
Whereas the Calvinist’s version of sovereignty (God ordains, preplans, causes, controls all things, even sin and evil) makes God a liar (for saying He wants one thing to happen when He really wants/preplanned the opposite) and wicked (He’s no different than Satan) and cruel (creating most people specifically for hell, pretending to give them a chance to be saved when they have no chance) and unjust (for punishing us for the things He made us do, things we had no control over),
If Calvinists want to worship and defend that kind of god then that’s tragic for them. Because it’s not the God of the Bible. (And if it’s not the God of the Bible, then I wonder who it really is?)
Heather writes “He’s saying that it’s pointless for Calvinists to say God wants/causes/predestines all evil but then to still be bothered by evil and to act like we have a choice about it. ”
We know that God is present when evil actions occur and that He has the power to prevent any evil actions He wants. Because God is sovereign, the buck stops with Him. God has the final say on anything that happens, including evil actions, and nothing happens without God saying that it will happen – God cannot be passive or dismissive of anything that happens.
So, what is the point of evil? Evil provides a means for God to test people and for people to see themselves as they are. Adam/Eve were given a command and to disobey was to commit an evil act. God gave them the ability to disobey (He could have acted in any number of ways to prevent that outcome) and sin (i.e., evil) was the result. People, including believers, always face temptations to disobey God and thereby do evil. God gives people the ability to sin and many do. Do people consciously choose to sin? Of course they do. People will do to others that which they would not want done to them. A person can rob another person knowing that he would not want to be robbed himself. It is in this distinction that a person condemns himself – regardless whether God knows it beforehand or because God decreed it to happen. Just because God has ordained all things does not make the world pointless. We all know that we will stand before God one day to give account of our lives and no one will be able to argue that he was not aware that he distinguished between what he did to others and what he wanted others to do to him.
Heather can deny that God knows everything that happens and has the power to change any outcome He wants. Heather can deny that God is sovereign and exercises absolute rule over His creation and everything that happens in His creation. She can even call God schizophrenic because He commands obedience and then gives people the ability to disobey. That just means that she hides her head in the sand and refuses to face reality.
God has given Heather self-awareness and as much as she would like to think that anything she does doesn’t make a difference because it is all ordained by God, she knows that what she does and she knows the reasons she does it – those reasons can reflect selfishness or covetousness or pride on her part. She also knows that she will be denied entry into heaven because of the things she does. If she is concerned about this, then she should thank God for opening her eyes to this. What she will not be able to do is stand before God and claim that she is innocent.
Heather wrote:
Yet, whenever evil happens, it’s because Calvi-god had a secret, unspoken command (which contradicted his spoken, revealed command) where he actually wanted the person to commit the evil he commanded us not to do. Because he’s pleased by it and gets glory from it. Schizophrenic!
Roland wrote: You sound like you don’t believe that God operates in secret and that He cannot command something without speaking it. Does everything that God has said or will say revealed to humans? You seem to deny that God has an unrevealed will. Take a close look at Isaiah 10:5-7
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.
Isaiah teaches us some interesting truths that as Calvinists we embrace. First, Assyria is in God’s hand, this means that God is in control of them. Second, God sends them and gives them charge to seize and to take and to tread. Verse 7 is very interesting because it tells us that the Assyrian does not mean so nor does his heart think so but it is in his heart to destroy.
Can you see how God uses the Assyrians’ desires for His own purposes? Can you see How God sends the Assyrians even though it is not the Assyrians’ will do go?
Isaiah 10:12
12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has [b]performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.”
It gets even more interesting in verse 12. God punishes the Assyrian king for what God sends him to do. The non-Calvinist will deny this as true. The non-Calvinist refuses to acknowledge the Biblical truth that God is in control of everything. The Calvinist embraces this truth wholeheartedly. God is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty in His creation. Thanks for reading
Heather wrote:
I think a big problem in Calvinism is that they conflate God’s Will/desires with His plans.
Roland wrote: We do not conflate God’s will/desire. We actually hold these as distinct categories. It really is the non-Calvinist who conflates these categories. You can watch Leighton do it in his debate with James White. First Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
God desires that all men be saved. Has God willed this desire? No. How do I know this? Because there are people who are not saved and are in eternal punishment. So, as a Calvinist I do make distinctions, the non-Calvinist doesn’t. Because this is a common verse used by non-Calvinist to say that God either saves all men (universalist) or at least gives all men the ability and opportunity for salvation (Arminians, provisionists, basically any non-Calvinist). They see it as God’s will not desire.
Heather wrote:
Whereas the Calvinist’s version of sovereignty (God ordains, preplans, causes, controls all things, even sin and evil) makes God a liar (for saying He wants one thing to happen when He really wants/preplanned the opposite) and wicked (He’s no different than Satan) and cruel (creating most people specifically for hell, pretending to give them a chance to be saved when they have no chance) and unjust (for punishing us for the things He made us do, things we had no control over),
Roland wrote: That’s a heavy charge. All Calvinists would deny most of your statement.
Heather wrote:
If Calvinists want to worship and defend that kind of god then that’s tragic for them. Because it’s not the God of the Bible. (And if it’s not the God of the Bible, then I wonder who it really is?)
Roland wrote: We do worship the God of the Bible. It is the non-calvinist who does not worship the God of the Bible. In non-calvinist doctrine God does not control all things, when the Bible reveals that He does. Non-calvinism makes no sense to me because they teach that humans have libertarian freewill. If we have libertarian freewill then there is no reason to ask God to save sinners. According to non-calvinist, God has no say in the matter but it is all about person.
Acts 16:14
14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
As Calvinists, we follow Paul’s pattern, we preach the Word of God and trust that the Lord will open the hearts of the hearers as He did with Lydia. The non-calvinist, according to their theology, have to deny this because God will not violate libertarian freewill. If He does, then it is not libertarian or free. But here in the Bible, we read that God opened Lydia’s heart. It does not say God forced it, He just opened it because that is God exercising His sovereignty in the salvation of the elect. A person cannot and will not heed the things of God unless God opens their heart. Thanks for reading.
rhutchin says: “So, what is the point of evil? Evil provides a means for God to test people and for people to see themselves as they are.”
That’s funny! Why would Calvinism’s god need to test people if he predetermines what they will choose anyway? It’s like testing a puppet on your hand to see what they would do.
And why would people need to see themselves as they are? In Calvinism, does self-awareness have any effect on what a person has been predestined to choose, on the course of a person’s life, on their destiny?
Which came first then: their self-awareness or what was predestined to happen? If self-awareness is first and it has an effect on what happens in their lives (their choices) then things weren’t really predestined. If their choices and the course of their life was predestined first, then it doesn’t make any difference if they became self-aware or not. In that case, self-awareness would be a footnote, meaningless, because it has no effect on their lives. And if Calvinism’s god fore-ordained (preplans/causes) both the self-awareness and the consequences of the self-awareness, then self-awareness is a sham because it’s not “self” anything.
Heather asks, “Why would Calvinism’s god need to test people if he predetermines what they will choose anyway?”
The testing shows the person where they stand with God. For believers, testing exposes the weaknesses of believers and provides assurance that God has saved them as testing drives them to God for help and deepens their reliance on God. For unbelievers, it shows that they don’t depend on God but can be a means that God is using to draw them to Christ. Ultimately, God’s purpose works through testing just as His purpose works through other means even if we don’t know what God’s predetermined plan is. God knows His plan and His testing is part of that plan. Of course, in the case of Eli’s sons, God’s purpose was to kill them and their testing led to that result. In the case of Abraham and Job, God’s testing solidified their faith.
rhutchin
The testing shows the person where they stand with God.
br.d
Well – in Calvinism – a sure way to know where one stands with Calvin’s god – is whether one DOESN’T end up in the lake of fire for his good pleasure along with the vast majority of the human population – which he lovingly designed for that purpose.
Including that MASSIVE population of Calvinists – whom he -quote ILLUMINED for a time – and then STRUCK with greater blindness.
There’s gonna be a whole lot of Calvinists seeing where they stand there!
rhutchin says: “So, what is the point of evil? Evil provides a means for God to test people and for people to see themselves as they are.”
br.d
When it comes to the Calvinist career of HIDING THE TRUTH about Calvinism – rhutchin doesn’t need to worry about not having job security!!! ;-]
Roland, You’ll have to excuse me for misunderstanding what you were asking. The way you wrote it sounded to me like you were asking about the typical ways Calvinists twist scripture, not for specific people who have done so. Yet, what I wrote are things I’ve read or heard from Calvinists time and time again, and so I’d say that if you want names of Calvinists who twist Scripture, the most complete answer I can give is “All of them.” Because it’s the Calvinism itself that’s twisted.
Since I am pressed for time, I will only respond to a few things you wrote:
1. “Right away it leads me to believe that I am wasting my time.”
If you are wasting your time, it’s because God ordained it and it brings Him glory. So would it really be wasted? And do you really have control over what you do with your time?
2. “The basic reasoning is this: since God calls everyone to believe, then we must all be able to believe because that would be vain of God to do so. That’s the non-Calvinist response, at least what I have encountered.”
I’ll grant you that the “whosoever believes” verses don’t clearly say that all can believe. But I don’t think it should have to, because offering salvation to all people implies that they can accept that offer. Or else it wouldn’t be a real offer. It would be a pointless, meaningless, cruel joke. I think God’s character demonstrates that He wouldn’t command all people to believe while making it impossible for most to do so. To believe that “If God calls all to believe then it means that all are able to believe” is the best way to understand it, especially if we want to uphold God’s character. Because for God to act like He’s offering salvation to all while at the same time causing them to be unable to accept it makes Him a liar and untrustworthy. For Him to punish people for not believing when He made them be unbelievers, making it impossible for them to believe (because He wants them in hell, for His glory and pleasure), makes Him unjust and cruel. A monster. The Calvinist god is no better than Satan. In fact, the Calvinist god is worse than Satan because we at least expect this kind of stuff from Satan. We expect him to be a cruel, untrustworthy, unjust liar who delights in seeing people go to hell. But we wouldn’t expect that from God. Therefore, Calvi-god’s duplicitous nature – Satan on the inside, but “God” on the outside – is far worse.
3. “Acts 17:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. The Lord opened Lydia’s heart! In your understanding of Scripture, it should not read that the Lord opened her heart but that Lydia allowed or permitted the Lord to open her heart or Lydia opened her own heart. Do you deny God opening Lydia’s heart? If you do, then you are denying Scripture.”
I don’t deny that God opened her heart. What I have a problem with is that Calvinists read into it that God opened her heart to believe the gospel. That is nowhere in the verse. (If it is, could you please find the verse for me?) All we know is that she was already a worshipper of God, that Paul preached something to her, and that God opened her heart.
I would say that the best way to understand this verse is to compare it to something Paul told other believers just a few chapters later in Acts 19. In this passage, he is not preaching the salvation message to them but telling them about the need to get baptized into the Holy Spirit. (Notice that these men were disciples who hadn’t yet gotten the Spirit. This contradicts a Calvinist’s view that we need to get the Holy Spirit first in order to believe.) They were baptized immediately after hearing this.
This is the same thing that happened to Lydia after hearing whatever message Paul preached to her. She got her family baptized. So I would venture to say that the best way to understand the Lydia passage, since we know she already worships God, is to say that Paul’s message was probably about the need for believers to be baptized, not about the need for sinners to believe. God helped her to see the importance of baptism. The way I see it, in Scripture God helps those who are seeking, who are sensitive to Him, to find Him and see Him more clearly. But they had to want it first. But if someone wants to be hard-hearted, He lets them be, sometimes even handing them over to their hardness more. But it’s what they chose first. Lydia was already a worshipper of God, believing in Him, seeking Him. And He helped her on the journey to see the next step: baptism.
If Calvinism is true, though, how could Lydia be a worshipper of God before God caused her to believe? If He hadn’t yet regenerated her, then she was a “totally depraved, wicked, rebellious sinner” (as Calvinists call the unregenerated) who was worshipping God. My Calvinist pastor brilliantly explained it this way: “Yeah, it says that she was a worshipper of God, but she wasn’t saved yet.” Once again, this is nowhere in the verse. He (pathetically) read into it something that wasn’t there so that he could say that she wasn’t a believer yet and that God caused her to believe.
Also, if Calvinism is true, how could the disciples in Acts 19 be believers without having yet gotten the Holy Spirit? How could they have repented before getting the Holy Spirit? (It says they already went through John’s baptism of repentance.) That would mean they were “totally depraved, wicked, rebellious sinners” who were disciples who had already repented. How does Calvinism makes sense of that? Can you find a verse that says that Lydia or those disciples were unbelievers? Or that Paul preached the salvation message? Or that the disciples got the Holy Spirit first, before repenting and believing?
Calvinism itself twists Scripture to fit its views. Therefore, all those who adhere to it twist Scripture too. They have to, in order to maintain their Calvinism. And now I’ll let you have the last word. I’ve spent enough time typing today. (And I won’t even know if you reply because I don’t get notifications of replies. It’s one way I protect my time.) Blessings to you!
I’m not sure how my comment got way down here (I must have clicked the wrong “reply” button), but it’s supposed to follow Roland’s comment that starts with: “Heather wrote: CALVINIST TWIST: “No, God created most people to be sinners so that He could show off His justice by punishing them in hell for sinning.””
And with this, I’m bowing out. Spend too much time typing. I need to get out and enjoy the sunshine.
(And thanks to Fromoverhere for jumping in again with your comment starting with “Heather (posting again, cuz of your support, but not directly to any more of their round-n-round stuff)”. I always enjoy hearing good stories about some of the silly, contradictory things Calvinists say and how much it conflicts with the Bible, and yet they can’t see it.)
Take care Heather!
Enjoy that sunshine! :-]
Thanks, Brdmod!
And I did want to add one thing, to no one in particular:
Non-Calvinists (like those here) don’t think we need a special type of theologian to tell us what God meant in His Word. Yes, there are some confusing parts, but we think anyone can understand the basic gospel message just by reading the Word for themselves.
It’s the Calvinists who need Calvinist theologians and Calvinists books and Calvinists classes to spend months figuring out what God “meant” to say in His Word, all the “hidden, deeper messages” that are underneath (and that contradict) what He said. This alone should be really telling about who is reading scripture plainly and who isn’t.
And at least we are trying to defend the idea that God speaks clearly, that He means what He says and says what He means, that He doesn’t make fake offers or deceive us about what’s possible, that He can be trusted (when He gives a command, He means it, without having a secondary, hidden plan where He wants us to disobey His spoken command), that He loves all people, that He really wants everyone in heaven, that He doesn’t punish people for sins He caused them to do, etc.
While the Calvinists are trying to defend the idea that God has hidden layers and secondary meanings for the things He says, that He says one thing but means another, that He commands one thing but really wants the opposite to happen, that He gives fake offers and makes people think they have a choice and an effect on what happens when they really don’t, that He hates most people and wants most people in hell, that He’s glorified by sin and evil, that He punishes people for sins that He caused and that they had no control over or choice about, etc.
That ought to tell us something about how sick and twisted their theology/”God” is (and who’s behind it)!
And now, I’m off for a walk in the sunshine! (You enjoy your day, too, brdmod! Thanks for all you do. I get to bail when I want, but you have to read through all that’s posted here. God bless you for the time and effort you put into this website!)
Heather wrote:
It’s the Calvinists who need Calvinist theologians and Calvinists books and Calvinists classes to spend months figuring out what God “meant” to say in His Word, all the “hidden, deeper messages” that are underneath (and that contradict) what He said. This alone should be really telling about who is reading scripture plainly and who isn’t.
Roland wrote:
You really misunderstand Calvinism on this point. You need to look into church history especially medieval and Reformation church history. If anything, Calvinists historically have sought to translate the Bible into common language so everyone could read it. You are really wrong on this point. Luther, a Reformer though not a Calvinist, translated the Bible into German. There is much out there that clearly expresses this point about Calvinism, we want people to read God’s Word.
Also, Calvinists hold to a position, doctrine, regarding Scripture called perspicuity. We believe Scripture is clear enough that anybody can read it and have a basic understanding of what God is saying. This does not mean that everyone who reads the Bible comes to an understanding of salvation but it does mean that God has made His Word clear enough for us not to be confuse about it. We also believe that God’s Holy Spirit gives true illumination of His Word.
Also, putting the Scriptures into the layperson’s hand is one point that the Reformation was about. The Reformers had a strong desire, that they put into practice, that the Word of God could be read by a layperson. At the time of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church, even to this day, did not believe that laypersons should have a copy of the Bible in their own language to read and to study. We do not believe we need Calvinist theologians, books, and classes to understand the “hidden, deeper messages.” It would be an unfortunate misstatement of the truth about Calvinism and having God’s Word in the common language. Blessings.
Roland writes, ‘[Calvinists] believe Scripture is clear enough that anybody can read it and have a basic understanding of what God is saying.”
Even the atheists have a basic understanding of what the Bible says however, to them, it is all foolishness and it will always be foolishness to them until God extends grace to them and gives them faith.
rhutchin wrote:
Even the atheists have a basic understanding of what the Bible says however, to them, it is all foolishness and it will always be foolishness to them until God extends grace to them and gives them faith.
Roland wrote:
You are right. The key difference is not that they don’t have a basic understanding, it’s whether they can receive Scripture as truth. Unless the Holy Spirit renews their hearts, opens their minds, it all foolishness. Non-Calvinists want to believe that the natural man, the unregenerate man, can come to faith without God’s grace. That’s why the non-calvinists does not believe that God opened Lydia’s heart. They explain it away so that it fits their libertarian freewill theology.
Actually, Roland, most non-Calvinists I know believe grace is necessary to come to salvation which is what I think you mean when you say “come to faith”. God offers the grace and man must accept or reject it. Lydia was being drawn by grace that she was accepting before God opened her heart, which means – saved her.
As for the Lydia story… there is not enough to be dogmatic about what “opened her heart” means. I personally take the tact that it probably means “regeneration”, for in agreeing with the Calvinist, I then point out that she was seeking God correctly before being born again.
She “worshipped God” and was listening to Paul. I believe just like Cornelius, she believed the message of forgiveness through faith (Acts 10:43), and like him, had her heart purified through faith (Acts 15:7-9).
The Calvinist tries to put her act of “faith” into the words “she attended unto the things which were spoken”. But that word – προσέχειν – has to do with careful attention to outward actions… not inward actions like “faith”. Luke is most likely talking about her presenting herself for baptism since she did believe Jesus had forgiven her.
The Calvinist has to deal with Lydia seeking and understanding positively truth she was listening to, or he must believe the words of the gospel are like mumbo jumbo magic words that cause God to open hearts with this reformed “regeneration” of the will, and then they start to understand.
It’s a lot to take on faith in their reading their theology into these texts, when Peter says clearly the gospel preaching is before regeneration, and one would assume it was understood and believed and not mumbo jumbo.
1 Peter 1:23-25 NKJV — having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever….Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
Brian, thanks for the reply.
Brian wrote:
Actually, Roland, most non-Calvinists I know believe grace is necessary to come to salvation which is what I think you mean when you say “come to faith”. God offers there grace and man must accept or reject it.
Roland wrote: True, most non-calvinists do believe grace is necessary. But I believe the point of disagreement is the type of grace needed to come to faith. As a Calvinist, I believe that God grants saving grace to some but not all. I also believe that God grants common grace to all as the rain pours on the just and unjust.
Brian wrote:
Lydia was being drawn by grace that she was accepting before God opened her heart, which means – saved her.
Roland wrote: I agree with you that Lydia believed something about God, the text says she was a worshipper of God already before God opened her heart but I don’t know if it was grace already working in her. Could be, I wouldn’t reject such a proposal as I believe grace is needed or required in order to come to God.
Brian wrote:
As for the Lydia story… there is not enough to be dogmatic about what “opened her heart” means.
Roland wrote: I agree with you on this point as well. There is not enough in the text to be dogmatic about. My point in bringing up Lydia and God opening her heart is to test the doctrine of libertarian freewill. If we have libertarian freewill, then how is it that it is plainly stated that God opened up Lydia’s heart? My suspicion is that a proponent of libertarian freewill would have to assume that Lydia gave God permission or Lydia chose to open up her heart but that is not what the text says.
Brian wrote:
I personally take the tact that it probably means “regeneration”, for in agreeing with the Calvinist, I then point out that she was seeking God correctly before being born again.
Roland wrote: Amen, we agree again. It probably means or at least suggests that salvation is a monergistic work of God. I don’t know if she was seeking God correctly before being born again. I am a Calvinist, so I do believe regeneration proceeds salvation (John 3).
Brian wrote:
The Calvinist tries to put her act of “faith” into the words “she attended unto the things which were spoken”. But that word – προσέχειν – has to do with careful attention to outward actions… not inward actions like “faith”. Luke is most likely talking about her presenting herself for baptism since she did believe Jesus had forgiven her.
Roland wrote: First, I can’t read Greek. I’m working off the English translation of the Greek text. I do believe Lydia reformed an act of faith. Because in order to sincerely and truly attend to God’s Word, though Paul was preaching, I believe faith is a requirement. I believe faith causes us to careful attention to outward actions. I will grant you what you wrote about the Greek word, as I am not familiar with Greek.
Brian wrote:
The Calvinist has to deal with Lydia seeking and understanding positively truth she was listening to, or he must believe the words of the gospel are like mumbo jumbo magic words that cause God to open hearts with this reformed “regeneration” of the will, and then they start to understand.
Roland wrote: I don’t believe words cause anything apart from God. I stated earlier that we need to be regenerated before we can come to faith. We need new hearts before we can believe. I believe that this is the meaning of regeneration, God gives us new hearts, which change our affections. Our affections, after regeneration, now desire God where before they did not.
Brian wrote:
1 Peter 1:23-25 NKJV — having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever….Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
Roland wrote: You quoted the above verse. As a Calvinist, here’s how I understand that being born again is through the word of God. In order for us as sinners to believe, we need to hear the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing, hearing the Word of God Romans 10. We have to hear the Gospel message in order to be saved. That’s what all Calvinists, maybe a hyper Calvinists might not believe, believe. It is important that we hear Christ died for sinners, Christ came to rescue us, Christ came to redeem us, etc. Simple Gospel message. Also as a Calvinist, I believe there are means of grace. One means or manner or method of grace, God gives us grace, is the teaching or preaching of God’s Word. So, God’s grace comes to us through the preaching or teaching or reading of His Word. I can’t fully explain this or completely understand this but I believe that God grants us grace through the preaching or teaching of His Word, while the message is communicated to sinners, somewhere in that time, God gives us a new heart to believe the message. We then believe, we then repent, and put faith in Christ. I believe this is the historical understanding of the ordo salutis of Calvinism or at least a part of it as I’m leaving out election, predestination, adoption, etc.
Good stuff Brian, thanks for replying, commenting, and reading, I enjoyed reading your comments.
Brian,
I forgot to mention that faith comes by hearing (never listed as a special extra act by God). Just hearing the Word. Christ says, “If you had faith….” and in that context the implication is “have it!”
I forgot to mention that Calvinists get all keyed up with the “give permission” idea (cuz they think we want to make man bigger than God!).
We just came back from the Saturday night service (we go to two more in the morning if we can—-cuz it is so great after all the years on the small/ no church mission field).
Aaaaanyway, ironically in the message tonight were the words of Christ to the “seeking” masses following Him…. “Ask and it will be given to you.”
So… it is quite easy to see a seeking, worshiper of God (Lydia), who is in the place of prayer (!!!) asking God to show her more. She hears Paul and God “opens her heart” to understand his message. About the OT? About prophecies? About baptism?
There is no reason for the Calvinist to strawman. She is seeking. She is asking, like Jesus told them to. If Calvinists want to strawman by calling that “give God permission,” well that hardly helps the conversation or helps understand the Scripture. It is just a gotcha ploy we learn when learning the ropes.
Question to Calvinists: In your prayer life do you ask God to show you any weaknesses you have? ((Are you “giving Him permission”?)) Do you ask him to teach you things even if it “hurts” you to learn? And if His loving hand shows you something you need to learn, and maybe even causes you pain in the process…. did you actually “give Him permission” to do that?
The Lydia example is just another case of outrunning the text, having it say more than it says.
FOH wrote:
Question to Calvinists: In your prayer life do you ask God to show you any weaknesses you have? ((Are you “giving Him permission”?)) Do you ask him to teach you things even if it “hurts” you to learn? And if His loving hand shows you something you need to learn, and maybe even causes you pain in the process…. did you actually “give Him permission” to do that?
Roland wrote: Amen, I always pray for God to show me my weaknesses. Am I giving Him permission? No because I don’t believe God needs my permission, He can do with me whatsoever He desires. Yes, teach me God, even if it hurts. That’s the point of disagreement, God doesn’t need my permission but you make it sound like He does.
Does God need your permission to work in your life?
Thank you Roland for your thoughtful reply. But you did not deal adequately with my “mumbo jumbo” charge. You agreed faith comes after hearing and regeneration comes after hearing. Right? So is it hearing with understanding, then faith then regeneration (Scriptural teaching) or hearing without understanding (mumbo jumbo) then regeneration, then understanding, then faith, (false teaching).
The Calvinist wants regeneration not to be salvation! Wow. Their regeneration/birth makes no-one immediately a child nor gives everlasting life. Weird. Their regeneration is grace that does not go through faith, so it’s not a saving grace, I guess. Strange.
Grace through faith. διὰ πίστεως
Trying to help a Calvinist understand
biblical Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide…
-Righteousness through faith
-Propitiated through faith
-Receive the Spirit through faith
-Sons of God through faith
-Saved through faith
-Raised with Christ through faith
At least three of these definitely would confirm regeneration is through faith, not before faith like the Calvinist teaches, which attacks Sola Scriptura and a proper definition of Sola Fide.
Romans 3:22 NKJV — even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
Romans 3:25 NKJV — whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness….
Galatians 3:14 NKJV — that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:26 NKJV — For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8 NKJV — For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Colossians 2:12 NKJV — buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Saving grace is through faith. Faith has to be in place first for saving grace to go through it. Of course the new birth is by God alone. Think of a truck delivering goods through a tunnel. The tunnel doesn’t deliver the goods. But the tunnel must be in place before the truck goes through it.
brianwagner writes, “The Calvinist wants regeneration not to be salvation!”
John 3 tells us, “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God….unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Under Calvinism, to be born again is regeneration. Calvinists take “kingdom of God” as a reference to salvation. Thus a person must be regenerated to enter the kingdom of heaven, i.e., be saved. So, you are correct to say, “Their regeneration/birth makes no-one a child nor gives everlasting life.” Regeneration enables a person to become a child of God and receive everlasting life.
Then, “Their regeneration is grace that does not go through faith, so it’s not a saving grace, I guess.”
Being born again, or regeneration, is necessary for a person to see the kingdom of heaven or to see salvation. A person must be able to see salvation before he can have faith. A person must see Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection where “seeing” means that it is not foolishness to him. This must happen before he has faith because faith is a conviction of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
But you already know all this and have rejected it – thus you say, “Wow,” “Weird,” and “Strange.”
More dancing and denial of the truth and twisting of Scripture … very sad.
Thank Brian.
There’s more.
You are correct that we do not know what “opened her heart” means.
We DO know that Calvinists use this (running way too far with the text) to mean that it “must” mean the regeneration of a God-hater, and it “must” mean she was irresistibly dragged in.
What they overlook is that she was a worshiper of God, and she CANNOT be that prior to “regeneration” (per Calvinism). Just like Cornelius was a God-fearing Gentile and his faith and actions (before “regeneration” were praised in Scripture.
They also overlook that she was seeking God by being in the place of prayer, which cannot happen prior to “regeneration” (per Calvinism).
We also know that they will strawman us and accuse us of saying that God cannot do something without man’s permission. Wicked men are struck down by God all the time without giving permission! They are also blessed by God without giving God permission. We do note however that at the Passover the angel of death was given or denied permission by the blood that was applied by each household (in human exercised faith). The Scripture had many, many passages where God shows that He will wait for a decision from man.
It is just bad hermeneutic to base on this phrase “the Lord opened her heart to Paul’s message” the idea that (1) non-Calvinists say man needs to give God permission for everything, (2) this phrase absolutely means “regeneration,” and (3) this is a lesson about all human decisions at all time.
How in the world can a phrase like “the Lord opened her heart” (remember, as we have noted, she was in the place of prayer and a worshiper of God) be some kind of proof text that in all cases, with all people there needs to be an extra intervention by God for people to believe.
Simple question to Calvinists here: Most sites I have checked (and certainly our resident Calvinists here!) have made it clear that prior to regeneration the Gospel is complete foolishness and all unregenerate are God-haters. If this is a proof text to say that she is “regenerated” here, is that the way she is portrayed beforehand?
Meaning: Calvinists cannot have it both ways, i.e. this is her being regenerated here and prior to that she was a non-seeking, God-hater, who thought it was foolishness.
You can have one or the other boys, but both those Calvinist absolutes cannot be true here.
FOH, thanks for replying, hopefully you can read my reply to Brian.
FOH wrote:
We DO know that Calvinists use this (running way too far with the text) to mean that it “must” mean the regeneration of a God-hater, and it “must” mean she was irresistibly dragged in
Roland wrote: I addressed this in my response to Brian. Hopefully I have been consistent. But I don’t believe that this verse teaches us that God regenerated Lydia. I bring this verse up to test the libertarian freewill proponent’s belief that God will not violate human’s freewill. The verse does not say anything about Lydia’s permission or choice but clearly shows us God’s actions. He opened Lydia’s heart. The non-Calvinist, or libertarian freewill proponent, should at least acknowledge this. I don’t bring this up to show the non-calvinist or libertarian freewill proponent that they are wrong, but to make the point that we need to consider our presuppositions. We, as Christians, need to think about what Scripture says, that’s all I’m trying to do.
FOH wrote:
What they overlook is that she was a worshiper of God, and she CANNOT be that prior to “regeneration” (per Calvinism). Just like Cornelius was a God-fearing Gentile and his faith and actions (before “regeneration” were praised in Scripture.
They also overlook that she was seeking God by being in the place of prayer, which cannot happen prior to “regeneration” (per Calvinism).
Roland wrote: I don’t believe I have overlooked this truth as stated in Scripture. What Scripture says, I cannot as a Christian deny, yes, Lydia was a worshipper of God, she was at a place of prayer, I have nothing to disagree with anything about this. But I do believe that regeneration is before faith as I communicated to Brian. I am not reading it into the text but I am looking to the totality of Scripture to form doctrine. Jesus did say in John 3 that a man cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Historically, Calvinists have believed that entering the kingdom of God would include faith or belief in Christ. This is what I believe as a Calvinist.
FOH wrote:
We also know that they will strawman us and accuse us of saying that God cannot do something without man’s permission. Wicked men are struck down by God all the time without giving permission! They are also blessed by God without giving God permission. We do note however that at the Passover the angel of death was given or denied permission by the blood that was applied by each household (in human exercised faith). The Scripture had many, many passages where God shows that He will wait for a decision from man.
Roland wrote: I agree with your statement. The issue I have is that it does not always seem as if non-Calvinists believe that God can operate without man’s permission. Amen, I agree with you, God blesses and curses without man’s permission. But the ending of the paragraph I disagree with. I don’t believe God waits for man to make a decision. Yes, Scripture has recorded occasions where God “waits” for man. But I reject the idea that God “waiting” on man means that God is dependent on man. I’m not sure if that is what you mean. If I’m wrong, please, let me know.
FOH wrote:
It is just bad hermeneutic to base on this phrase “the Lord opened her heart to Paul’s message” the idea that (1) non-Calvinists say man needs to give God permission for everything, (2) this phrase absolutely means “regeneration,” and (3) this is a lesson about all human decisions at all time
Roland wrote: It is bad hermeneutics, agree. But a libertarian freewill proponent seems to believe that God will not violate libertarian freewill, therefore, I conclude that God needs permission to act. That is why I believe what I believe about libertarian freewill. As far as number 3, I don’t believe this is a lesson about all human decisions at all time. I propose it as I’ve stated earlier, to test libertarian freewill. Also, God’s opening Lydia’s heart should at least cause a libertarian freewill proponent to consider or reconsider their belief. Will they consider or reconsider their belief? No has been my experience.
FOH wrote:
Simple question to Calvinists here: Most sites I have checked (and certainly our resident Calvinists here!) have made it clear that prior to regeneration the Gospel is complete foolishness and all unregenerate are God-haters. If this is a proof text to say that she is “regenerated” here, is that the way she is portrayed beforehand?
Roland wrote: I think I am a resident Calvinist! So let me chime in. I am not offering this text about Lydia to prove regeneration but to show that libertarian freewill may not be biblical. True, prior to regeneration the Gospel is complete foolishness and all unregenerate are God haters. Yes, Lydia being a God worshipper is interesting but some reason, not made known by Scripture, God opened her heart to hear Paul’s words. I believe there is lots of mystery here but the point I try to make is about libertarian freewill and God’s actions.
Good stuff FOH, thanks for commenting, and if you do, for reading.
Well said FOH!
brianwagner writes, “The Calvinist has to deal with Lydia seeking and understanding positively truth she was listening to, or he must believe the words of the gospel are like mumbo jumbo magic words that cause God to open hearts with this reformed “regeneration” of the will, and then they start to understand. ”
Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,…” We know that no one is born with faith as faith comes from hearing the gospel. That is why Jesus said, “No one can come to me…” However, Jesus notes an exception, “…unless the Father who sent me draws him,…” When we read of Cornelius and Lydia, we see that they are being drawn by God to Christ. They are still unsaved despite being described as worshipers of God. They still needed to hear the gospel preached, receive faith, and believe in Christ. To get this result, we see that God had to open Lydia’s heart. Would the story have ended the same had God not opened Lydia’s heart? I don’t think so. Without God opening Lydia’s heart, she would not have been attentive to Paul’s declaration of Christ and she would not have received faith and she would not have been saved.
Then, ‘It’s a lot to take on faith in their reading their theology into these texts, when Peter says clearly the gospel preaching is before regeneration, and one would assume it was understood and believed and not mumbo jumbo.”
Both regeneration and faith arise from the preaching of the gospel and both are necessary to salvation – on the presumption that entering the kingdom of heaven in John 3 is a reference to salvation or else the presumption is that Nicodemis was saved and Christ was telling him that he had to be born again to enter the kingdom at the end of the age. Of course, Peter is writing to believers, who are able to understand the Scriptures through their faith. The argument is not whether preaching is before regeneration, but whether regeneration is before faith.
… more word dancing with two left feet and tripping often… very sad.
Brian,
What kills me about this “conversation” is the Calvinist ability to bring presuppositions to the table, or to repeat the same catch phrase from a verse (of course interpreted only their unique way!).
Now and again someone comes on and I assume we will be conversing somewhat logically together. I expected that months ago when Roland came on (and I give newcomers the benefit of the doubt). I no longer expect it from RH or JTL.
No matter what the passage or what we say, they seem to often apply a gotcha phrase to hundreds of our verses as if that makes it all go away.
So, no matter what the passage we are dealing with….just superimpose “no one comes to the Father” on it and make it vanish. Of course that assumes (1) there is a connection between the concepts (and there likely is not) and (2) we accept their particular interpretation of that phrase (((and I note here that you, Brian, have been super generous and longsuffering in your many attempts to lay out that passage, even in academic articles on line.)))
But no matter. Rinse, repeat. It certain becomes ludicrous!
Then come the vindictive accusations at me (as if the point is about me) that “FOH just cannot accept” or “FOH hates….” or “FOH has a problem with …”
Nah… that aint what’s happening.
Imagine this:
You are discussing the earth and galaxies with a flat-earther and no matter what you say (telescopes, moon landings, space exploration, photos of earth from space, etc), the persons says, “Yeah, but the earth is flat so….”
One size fits all! Just stick that band-aid on anywhere you want and it removes any argument.
That is eisegesis. Bring to the text what it will say.
Unfortunately, well-meaning guys like Roland will get in the echo-chamber of Reformed theology and it becomes truer and truer until you cannot even hear (or dont want to—or are afraid to hear) what someone says. They are told that anything less than the party line is not God-honoring, and not “just following Scripture”. When it comes time to “just simply read” the hundreds of passages we show, they say, “Well, it doesnt really mean ‘all’ ‘whosoever’ ‘I would have’ ‘why did you not’ ‘now I know what you will do’ etc etc. Those passages cannot be ‘simply read’ they have to be filtered through our 40 filter verses.”
I remember well being very afraid to budge on this, cuz ….
“Who knows where it will lead…. probably to a ‘man-made theology’ horrors! Dont go there…. dont go anywhere near those semi-Polynesians! Stay with the sola-scriptura key 40 verses and interpret all else by what we ‘know’ the interpretation of these ‘must’ be. Defend the faith! Dead men dont make choices! God acts and never reacts! Get your catch phrases out, and keep those 2 Isaiah verses (and 38 others) handy…..so when those Semi-Polynesians show you their hundreds and hundreds of verses (with the Lord God saying, “If you had only done this I would have done this”) you can be ready to ‘defend the faith!'”
Anyway, the round-n-round is so silly. The bottom line is that they are choosing to favor Reformed theology, and I am choosing not to.
The choice is ours to make!
Isn’t it just like the Lord to give us the choice!
You’re right FOH… I used to think they must “see” they are twisting Scriptures… clear ones away from their clear meaning and unclear ones to force their theology into them. But I now think some of them have deceived themselves so much that they willfully don’t “see” anymore what Jesus has taught…
And they don’t “see” when they sometimes actually unwittingly agree with some truth that contradicts their theology when they are trying to support their falsehoods.
The latest example, [with my comments in brackets] – He said, “A person must be able [through reformed regeneration] to see salvation before he can have faith. [But then in contradiction] A person must see [pre-salvation faith] Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection where “seeing” means that it is not foolishness to him. This [pre-salvation faith] must happen before he has faith [that irresistibly lasts] because [that] faith is a conviction of the death and resurrection of Jesus.”
Notice he puts a “seeing” that is necessary before faith. He has unintentionally, imo, confused the term “seeing” with what he wants to call regeneration. But biblically “seeing” is believing, first in the head and then in the heart. So he has confirmed the two types of faith that are necessary parts of path to salvation.
I have no problem with with first head faith, “seeing”, and then after a humble heart commitment to that “seeing” God then gives regeneration that changes the will and that faith so that they become irresistibly tied to Jesus.
brianwagner writes, “The latest example, [with my comments in brackets] – He said, “A person must be able [through reformed regeneration] to see salvation before he can have faith. [But then in contradiction] A person must see [pre-salvation faith] Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection where “seeing” means that it is not foolishness to him. This [pre-salvation faith] must happen before he has faith [that irresistibly lasts] because [that] faith is a conviction of the death and resurrection of Jesus.”
More accurately; “The latest example, [with my comments in brackets] – He said, “A person must be able [through reformed regeneration] to see/perceive salvation before he can desire salvation. [But then in contradiction] A person must also see/perceive Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection as Christ is the focus of salvation. Here “seeing” means that it is not foolishness to him so that he can desire Christ. This must happen before he receives faith [that irresistibly lasts] because [that] faith is a conviction of the death and resurrection of Jesus and gives rise to a desire for, and a belief in, Christ.”
Then, “He has unintentionally, imo, confused the term “seeing” with what he wants to call regeneration. But biblically “seeing” is believing,…”
Regeneration enables one to see spiritual things not otherwise seen. There are two types of people in the world: those who are carnal and have their mind set on the flesh and those who are spiritual and have their mind set on the spirit. These may be termed the natural man and the spiritual man. The carnal or natural person cannot see (i.e., understand) the gospel because it is foolishness to him. He must be changed into a spiritual man who can see and desire the things of the gospel. Seeing precedes faith; faith precedes believing.
rhutchin
Regeneration enables one to see spiritual things not otherwise seen
br.d
But only in the form of – and limited to – perceptions which are infallibly decreed to come to pass within the brain.
Which includes infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions.
And in the case of MANY Calvinists – those infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions would be FALSE perceptions of election/salvation.
And also – all FALSE perceptions – are – (by infallible decree) NOT PERMITTED to be discerned as FALSE perceptions.
Because doing so would falsify the infallible decree which created them.
That is why – when you ask a Calvinist what percentage of his perceptions are FALSE – he can’t answer
His brain is not permitted to determine a FALSE perception from a TRUE one.
rhutchin
Even the atheists have a basic understanding
br.d
What is interesting for me to observe – is Atheist Determinists more intellectually honest than their Theological counterparts (aka Calvinists) :-]
Heather wrote:
While the Calvinists are trying to defend the idea that God has hidden layers and secondary meanings for the things He says, that He says one thing but means another, that He commands one thing but really wants the opposite to happen, that He gives fake offers and makes people think they have a choice and an effect on what happens when they really don’t, that He hates most people and wants most people in hell, that He’s glorified by sin and evil, that He punishes people for sins that He caused and that they had no control over or choice about, etc.
That ought to tell us something about how sick and twisted their theology/”God” is (and who’s behind it)!
Roland wrote: This is really unfair. Can you quote me a prominent Calvinist theologian who believes “the idea that God has hidden layers and secondary meanings for the things He says…”?
It is dishonest to spread unsubstantiated truths about us. Either present the quotes or please stop from making such falsehoods about Calvinists and Calvinism. We DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE HIDDEN LAYERS AND SECONDARY MEANINGS in the Bible. That is just flat out wrong.
br.d wrote:
They say a picture is worth a thousand words :-]
Roland wrote: Do you believe Calvinists are Christians? Are we your fellow brothers in Christ? Or, are we outside of Christ?
Roland
Do you believe Calvinists are Christians?
br.d
TRUE Calvinism teaches that the preponderance of Calvinists are NOT ELECT.
And the proportion of Calvinists who are elect – are a -quote “FEW grains”
And in contrast to a “FEW grains” – the proportion of Calvinists who are NOT elect are a “PILE”
And that the “FEW grains are hidden under that PILE”
TRUE Calvinism teaches that Calvin’s god deceives the preponderance of Calvinists with a FALSE perception of election.
This is what historical Calvinism calls the “Dreaded False Hope”.
To require a non-Calvinist to treat a Calvinist contrary to the way the Calvinist treats the Calvinist would be intellectually dishonest
Heather writes, “Yes, there are some confusing parts, but [non-Calvinists] think anyone can understand the basic gospel message just by reading the Word for themselves.”
Calvinists agree that anyone can understand the basic gospel message just by reading the Word for themselves – however, the gospel message will be foolishness to them until God gives them faith. The Calvinist emphasis on the necessity of faith for salvation and that just burns people up as we see in the comments of FOH and Heather.
rhutchin
the gospel message will be foolishness to them until God gives them faith.
br.d
Right! He takes out his irresistible floppy disk which he called “total depravity” and replaces it with his irresistible floppy disk which he called “faith”.
And PRESTO! :-]
br.d: “[God] takes out his irresistible floppy disk which he called “total depravity” and replaces it with his irresistible floppy disk which he called “faith”. ”
I guess that’s one way to look at it. The floppy disk would be a heart of stone that is replaced by a heart of flesh.
rhutchin
The floppy disk would be a heart of stone that is replaced by a heart of flesh.
br.d
Not quite
The floppy disk contains the program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted.
And if the program infallibly decrees that you take the mark of the beast – then that program cannot be falsified – and thus cannot be resisted.
Which means – the program dictated that your perceptions of election/regeneration would be FALSE perceptions
Which you were not permitted to discern as FALSE (at least until you took the mark of the beast)
Which means – All Calvinist perceptions of TRUE vs FALSE are predestined (i.e. programmed in infallible decrees) which cannot be falsified.
And any discernment that an infallibly decreed FALSE perception as FALSE would falsify the infallible decree
Therefore the Calvinist brain is NEVER PERMITTED to be the determiner of a TRUE perception from a FALSE one.
And that’s why – when you ask a Calvinist – what percentage of his perceptions are FALSE – he has no way of knowing.
rhutchin: “The floppy disk would be a heart of stone that is replaced by a heart of flesh.”
br.d: “Not quite. “The floppy disk contains the program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted.”
That’s not what you said. Let’s look at what you originally said, “[God] takes out his irresistible floppy disk which he called “total depravity” and replaces it with his irresistible floppy disk which he called “faith”. ” My response was accurate : “Total Depravity” is analogous to a Heart of Stone and “faith” is analogous to a heart of Flesh.
Now, you want to expand beyond just “Total Depravity” and “Faith” to be replaced by “the program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted.” But what did you intend to replace this with other than “the program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted.” I don’t see a difference between the new and the old disk, so I don’t understand your point. Are you able to explain where you are going on this?
You then say, “And if the program infallibly decrees that you take the mark of the beast – then that program cannot be falsified – and thus cannot be resisted.”
But why would it be resisted? A person without faith willingly takes on the mark of the beast and does so gladly without resistance. Even you should be able to understand this, so what is the issue if God understands it and decrees it?
Then, “Which means – the program dictated that your perceptions of election/regeneration would be FALSE perceptions
Which you were not permitted to discern as FALSE (at least until you took the mark of the beast)”
So what? Are you presuming that a person to whom God gives faith would actually take on the mark of the beast? Where a person takes on the mark of the beast, this would be an indicator than God never gave him faith. This is what John said, “…even now many antichrists have arisen. By this we know that it is the end times. They went out from us, but they didn’t belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have continued with us. But they left, that they might be revealed that none of them belong to us. ” Again, I don’t understand your point.
Then, “Which means – All Calvinist perceptions of TRUE vs FALSE are predestined (i.e. programmed in infallible decrees) which cannot be falsified.”
Again, so what? This is true for all people. Any person’s perception of truth is predestined as is a perception of false. That is why the believer seeks the truth of Scripture to replace all the false perceptions that fill his mind. So, how does this fit the floppy disk analogy you used? Are you saying that one floppy disk has false perceptions and God replaces it with a floppy disk of true perceptions?
Then, “And any discernment that an infallibly decreed FALSE perception as FALSE would falsify the infallible decree
Therefore the Calvinist brain is NEVER PERMITTED to be the determiner of a TRUE perception from a FALSE one.
And that’s why – when you ask a Calvinist – what percentage of his perceptions are FALSE – he has no way of knowing.”
Again, so what? When God gives a person faith, that faith replies on the truth of Scripture to discern that which is true from that which is false. That is true for Calvinist and non-Calvinist. What does that have to do with your disk analogy?
rhutchin
That’s not what you said. Let’s look at what you originally said, “[God] takes out his irresistible floppy disk which he called “total depravity” and replaces it with his irresistible floppy disk which he called “faith”.
br.d
Correct – but what a program is CALLED is not the same thing as the CONTENT of the program.
In this case – the floppy disk contains the program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted.
rhutchin
” My response was accurate : “Total Depravity” is analogous to a Heart of Stone and “faith” is analogous to a heart of Flesh.
br.d
Not quite!
What you are describing are components of the entity which is controlled by the program.
Arms and legs – is not the same thing as the program which controls those arms and legs
rhutchin
I don’t see a difference between the new and the old disk, so I don’t understand your point. Are you able to explain where you are going on this?
br.d
Its really quite simple
Your computer probably originally came with a browser which at some point either got upgraded or replaced.
Many windows computers for example will come with Explorer as the original browser.
That is a program which determines what the computer will do.
You take out that program and you replace it with a different one – for example FireFox
Its not that difficult to understand!
So Calvin’s god takes out the floppy disk called “Total Depravity” and replaces it with a different floppy disk called “Faith”
Assuming of course – that that gift of faith is not FALSE faith.
If the gift Calvin’s god gives – is the gift of FALSE faith – then the new program includes the function of FALSE perceptions of election/salvation
rhutchin
You then say, “And if the program infallibly decrees that you take the mark of the beast – then that program cannot be falsified – and thus cannot be resisted.”
br.d
Correct!
And you can’t complain – because in Exhaustive Determinism – nothing is UP TO YOU.
rhuthin
But why would it be resisted?
br.d
DUH!
In Calvinism – every impulse which comes to pass within the human brain – does so infallibly and thus irresistibly.
Every human function in Calvinist is irresistible
Its just that simple!
rhutchin
A person without faith willingly takes on the mark of the beast and does so gladly without resistance. Even you should be able to understand this, so what is the issue if God understands it and decrees it?
br.d
You don’t have it correct here – because you don’t account for Calvin’s god giving the gift of FALSE faith.
Remember – Calvin’s god gives a -quote SENSE yet without the spirit of adoption.
So Calvin’s god deceives the preponderance of Calvinists – lovingly giving them the gift of FALSE faith.
Which means – the program dictated that your perceptions of election/regeneration would be FALSE perceptions
Which you were not permitted to discern as FALSE (at least until you took the mark of the beast)”
rhutchin
So what?
br.d
For Calvin’s god’s glory and good pleasure of course!
How long have you been a Calvinist and you don’t know that??
All Calvinists created/designed for eternal torment are done so for his glory and his good pleasure.
That should be plenty of “so what” for any Calvinist.
rhuthin
Are you presuming that a person to whom God gives faith would actually take on the mark of the beast?
br.d
Where that gift of faith is the gift of FALSE faith – Absolutely!
rhutchin
Where a person takes on the mark of the beast, this would be an indicator than God never gave him faith.
br.d
Now your cutting Calvin’s god short!!
To the preponderance of Calvinists – Calvin’s god gives the gift of FALSE faith.
Which means – All Calvinist perceptions of TRUE vs FALSE are predestined (i.e. programmed in infallible decrees) which cannot be falsified.
rhutchin
Again, so what?
br.d
Boy you don’t seem to care much about Calvin’s god’s glory and good pleasure!
And also – as a confirmation that in Calvinism your brain is NEVER permitted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE!
rhutchin
This is true for all people.
br.d
FALSE
Only for those for whom “MERE” Permission does not exist
And those would be Theological Determinists (aka Calvinists) only.
The brains of all non-Calvinist believers are “MERELY” permitted to determine TRUE from FALSE because “MERE” permission exists for them.
rhutchin
Are you saying that one floppy disk has false perceptions and God replaces it with a floppy disk of true perceptions?
br.d
Not totally!
The testimony of any Calvinist who claimed to have once been an Arminian would be the testimony of a person who believes he once had infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions (i.e. Arminian perceptions) . He now believes that those FALSE perceptions were replaced with TRUE perceptions.
However – he has no way of knowing – because in Exhaustive Determinism – his brain is not granted the epistemic ability to determine a TRUE perception from a FALSE one. 100% of whatsoever perceptions which come to pass within his brain are determined solely and exclusively by Calvin’s god.
So even though the Calvinist has the perception that his previous (Arminian) perceptions were FALSE – having been replaced by TRUE perceptions – he has no way of determining whether that perception is TRUE or FALSE.
That is a LOGICAL consequence of Exhaustive Determinism
So – as I was explaining some of the details of that:
Any discernment that an infallibly decreed FALSE perception as FALSE would falsify the infallible decree
Therefore the Calvinist brain is NEVER PERMITTED to be the determiner of a TRUE perception from a FALSE one.
And that’s why – when you ask a Calvinist – what percentage of his perceptions are FALSE – he has no way of knowing.”
rhutchin
Again, so what?
br.d
Boy you really don’t seem to care about Calvin’s god’s glory and good pleasure!!
And this helps to explain why the Calvinist brain is granted no epistemic ability determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Perhaps you’ve already got that settled – and you’re cool with it! :-]
rhutchin
When God gives a person faith, that faith replies on the truth of Scripture to discern that which is true from that which is false.
br.d
Only in the realm of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking
In this case – *AS-IF* Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits you brain to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Which would be a denial of the doctrine of infallible decrees.
br.d writes, “In this case – the floppy disk contains the program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted.”
Yet, you named one disk, “Total Depravity,” and the other “Faith,” suggesting that one disk involved “Total Depravity” and the other “Faith.” Coincidentally, the discussion centers on the condition of unsaved people – they are without faith and thereby Totally Depraved – and the condition of saved people – They have faith and are not Totally Depraved. Let’s look at what you originally said, “[God] takes out his irresistible floppy disk which he called “total depravity” and replaces it with his irresistible floppy disk which he called “faith”. So the disk labeled, “Total Depravity” refers to a program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted that characterize the unsaved and the disk labeled “Faith,” refers to a program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted that characterize the saved.
My response was still accurate : “Total Depravity” is analogous to a Heart of Stone and “faith” is analogous to a heart of Flesh. Yet, you now say, “Not quite! What you are describing are components of the entity which is controlled by the program.” Since I do not understand what you are trying to say, I guess the discussion ends here.
rhutchin
Yet, you named one disk, “Total Depravity,” and the other “Faith,” suggesting that one disk involved “Total Depravity” and the other “Faith.”
br.d
Your brain came up with the word “involved”
I specifically used the word CONTAINS – as in it contains a program
Sorry if that concept is so difficult.
rhutchin
Coincidentally, the discussion centers on the condition of unsaved people
br.d
More precisely – it has to do with the state of nature (including any human’s nature) at any instance in time – which is 100% determined by Calvin’s god – and which occurs infallibly. And that is why in Calvinism – all human functionality is made irresistible to humans.
All human functionality (including every impulse PERMITTED to come to pass within the human brain) is CONTAINED in a program of infallible decrees.
rhutchin
they are without faith and thereby Totally Depraved
br.d
You keep forgetting – some are given the gift of FALSE faith.
As Calvin says – he gives them a SENSE as can be felt without the spirit of adoption.
That is a divine gift – don’t you know!!!
rhutchin
Lets look at what you originally said
br.d
Boy! Someone is DENSE!!!! ;-]
rhutchin
“[God] takes out his irresistible floppy disk CALLED “total depravity” and replaces it with his irresistible floppy disk CALLED ed “faith”. So the disk labeled, “Total Depravity” refers to a program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted
br.d
Correct!
rhutchin
that characterize the unsaved
br.d
No!
That programs what that person will be and do.
A program does not “characterize” the computer!!!
rhutchin
and the disk labeled “Faith,” refers to a program of infallible decrees which cannot be falsified and thus cannot be resisted
br.d
Correct!
rhutchin
that characterize the saved.
br.d
rhutchin – how difficult is it to understand – a program CONTROLS the computer – it doesn’t “characterize” the computer
rhutchin
My response was still accurate : “Total Depravity” is analogous to a Heart of Stone and “faith” is analogous to a heart of Flesh.
br.d
You’re still conflating the entity that is CONTROLLED – with the program that CONTROLS it
Is your computer Windows version x?
No!
Your computer is CONTROLLED by Windows version x
You don’t seem to be able to discern the difference.
Which shows that ERROR is built into the program Calvin’s god put in your floppy disk! :-]
You claimed Calvinists “OWN” Exhaustive Determinism
That claim is now being put to the test
And so far – that claim is not the case.
That claim will be proven – when you can differentiate a DETERMINED object/entity from the program which DETERMINES it.
A computer’s functionality is CONTROLLED by a program which DETERMINES that functionality.
Differentiating the computer from the program which DETERMINES its functionality – is part of OWNING Exhaustive Determinism
Here is an Atheist Determinist – who “OWNS” Exhaustive Determinism.
Sean Michael Carroll – American theoretical physicist – quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology.
Here Sean comments about OWNING Exhaustive Determinism
-quote
There is a whole other way of talking, that says ‘I’ am a person, ‘I’ kind of like coffee, but ‘I’ already had a cup this morning, and there is a chance that ‘I’ would drink this or ‘I’ would not. But for a Determinist does it make sense to say ‘I’ could have decided otherwise? Well, if you define yourself as a compilation of atoms and particles in a certain configuration, then the answer is ‘NO’. The Laws of physics dictate what is going to happen. You couldn’t have done otherwise. The way a determinist gets into trouble is when he MIXES UP those two different ways of talking.”
brdmod writes, “Here Sean comments about OWNING Exhaustive Determinism -quote- “There is a whole…”
Substitute “faith” for the laws of physics and faith determines an outcome that would not occur without faith.
rhutchin
Substitute “faith” for the laws of physics
br.d
Part of OWNING Exhaustive Divine Determinism – is to stop lying by omission about it
Speaking the TRUTH
That in Calvinism – the laws of physics themselves are 100% meticulously determined by a Calvin’s god
Since Sean Carrol does not have a THEOS as the sole and exclusive DETERMINER of whatsoever comes to pass.
But the Calvinist does!
That fact that the Calvinist will OBFUSCATE the THEOS as the sole and exclusive DETERMINER – reveals he does not OWN his doctrine.
So far – the claim of the Calvinist OWNING Exhaustive Divine Determinism – is not the case.
Obviously – lying by omission – is not considered a sin in Calvinism.
brdmod writes, “That in Calvinism – the laws of physics themselves are 100% meticulously determined by a Calvin’s god”
Of course. Why could there be laws of physics if God had not determined them?? Faith is also 100% meticulously determined by a God. How could there be faith if God had not determined it??
So, I guess the Calvinist does own Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
br.d
The omitted TRUTH – that in Calvinism – the laws of physics themselves are 100% meticulously determined by a Calvin’s god”
rhutchin
Of course. Why could there be laws of physics if God had not determined them??
br.d
So the it follows – in Calvinism the THEOS is the sole and exclusive determiner.
rhutchin
Faith is also 100% meticulously determined by a God. How could there be faith if God had not determined it??
br.d
That’s why lying by omission about Calvin’s god as the sole and exclusive DETERMINER is not OWNING the doctrine! :-]
rhutchin
So, I guess the Calvinist does own Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
br.d
Only when he’s not wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points
Which is most of the time. :-]
brdmod writes, “Differentiating the computer from the program which DETERMINES its functionality – is part of OWNING Exhaustive Determinism”
OK. Faith determines whether a person is saved or not. Inserting the floppy disk entitled, “Faith,” directs the computer to a faith result that was determined by the program on the floppy disk. In the same way, God inserts faith into a person and gets a faith result – salvation – that would not have otherwise occurred. God determined the outcome by inserting faith into the person.
br.d
Differentiating the computer from the program which DETERMINES its functionality – is part of OWNING Exhaustive Determinism”
rhutchin
OK. Faith determines whether a person is saved or not.
br.d
Why are you constantly missing the fact that there are TWO types of faith given as gifts???
In Calvinism there is a gift of TRUE faith – which is given to a “FEW” Calvinists
And there is a gift of FALSE faith – which is given to the “MANY” Calvinists
Repeat this out-loud 200 times to yourself
-quote
But the Lord…….INSTILLS INTO THEIR MINDS such a SENSE of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. ((Institutes)
There you have – the gift of FALSE faith.
rhutchin
Inserting the floppy disk entitled, “Faith,” directs the computer to a faith result that was determined by the program on the floppy disk.
br.d
Well – simply inserting the floppy disk doesn’t do the trick.
The program DETERMINES what the computer will do.
And more critically – it become obvious (per Calvin’s quote above) – the “result” is not discernible to the computer (i.e. the Calvinist)
Some are given a FALSE SENSE
And it is not granted that any Calvinist know – whether he is elect or not.
So the “result” is known to Calvin’s god alone.
rhutchin
In the same way, God inserts faith into a person and gets a faith result – salvation
br.d
Well – that is problematic language – if by “result” you mean “produce”
In Calvinism – salvation is a MONERGISTIC work of Calvin’s god alone.
The programmed entity doesn’t produce salvation.
The “status” of salvation is identical to the “status” of election.
The “status” of salvation is either TRUE or FALSE.
And only Calvin’s god knows whether the “status” is TRUE or FALSE
But either way – that “status” is TRUE or FALSE – at the foundation of the world – before people exist.
And no Calvinist is permitted to know if the gift of faith he is divinely given is TRUE faith – or FALSE faith.
rhutchin
– that would not have otherwise occurred.
br.d
Correct – the program is infallible and therefore no alternative is possible – at pain of falsifying its infallibility
rhutchin
God determined the outcome by inserting faith into the person.
br.d
No quite!
Calvin’s god determined the outcome at the foundation of the world before the person exists – by an infallible decree
There is no person to insert a floppy drive into at the point where humans don’t exit.
And as a side note:
In Calvinism – the computer (i.e. the Calvinist) is NOT permitted the epistemic function of determining whether or not the program Calvin’s god outfitted him with – is TRUE faith program – or FALSE faith program.
But alas – if it turns out the Calvinist takes the mark of the beast – then the Calvinist doing that was obviously built into the program.
But at that point – it should be obvious to the MANY Calvinists – that FALSE perceptions were built into their programming.
brdmod writes, “Your brain came up with the word “involved”
I specifically used the word CONTAINS – as in it contains a program
Sorry if that concept is so difficult.”
OK. What is the relationship of the “program” to the names on the disk – “Total Depravity” and “Faith”? What happens when one floppy disk is exchanged for the other?
Then, “More precisely – it has to do with the state of nature…”
OK. Can you relate that to the floppy disks and the names of those disks, “Total Depravity” and “Faith”?
Then, “A program does not “characterize” the computer!!!”
OK. In your mind what is the purpose of the two floppy disks each with (presumably) a different program than the other?
Then, “Is your computer Windows version x? No! Your computer is CONTROLLED by Windows version x”
And the computer is called, or characterized as a “Windows” computer versus a “Mac” computer. Regardless, you seem to be saying that the floppy disk labeled “Total Depravity” makes the person do one thing and the floppy disk labeled “Faith” makes the person do something else. So, my original response – “The floppy disk would be a heart of stone that is replaced by a heart of flesh.” – is still accurate. If not what do the floppy disks with their programs do?
Then, “Which shows that ERROR is built into the program Calvin’s god put in your floppy disk!”
We don’t know that yet, as you don’t seem able to explain what the “Total Depravity” program does and what the “Faith” program does.
Heather,
As you noted….
The Lydia gotcha passage is a red herring. Actually quite disingenuous, but they still use it.
They ask if God needed her permission….
Simple answer is in the passage.
“On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God.”
1. She was already down by the river at a place of prayer seeking God (Calvinist says no one seeks God…but there she was!).
2. The Bible calls her a “worshiper of God”. They skip over that part cuz it does not match their “all men are haters of God.”
3. What was Paul’s message? We dont know.
What the passage tells us is …. “When she and the members of her household were baptized…” Was that was the Lord opened her heart about…this worshiper of God? Maybe baptism? Maybe a deeper love for Christ? Maybe to see that Jesus was what the OT promised (often Paul’s message).
But Roland and others will not see or converse with this. They desperately need this passage and a handful of others (Is 10, Is 45, Eph 1:11, etc) and their interpretation of them in order to filter all the other thousands of verses through.
All of this and more has been answer MANY times on this site, other sites, books, teachings etc. They are not looking for those answers…just in an echo chamber of the same talking points.
FOH wrote:
What the passage tells us is …. “When she and the members of her household were baptized…” Was that was the Lord opened her heart about…this worshiper of God? Maybe baptism? Maybe a deeper love for Christ? Maybe to see that Jesus was what the OT promised (often Paul’s message).
Roland wrote: I am going to ask again, did God need permission to open Lydia’s heart? In a non-Calvinist understanding of Scripture man has freewill and God will not violate that freewill. You will not answer the question because you know that it is contrary to your libertarian freewill position.
It is irrelevant that Lydia was already a worshipper of God. That is not our point of disagreement. I concede it as Scripture clearly states it. The point of our disagreement is that man has libertarian freewill. I don’t believe it, you do. I offered Lydia’s situation in support of my view, you have not answered it.
FOH wrote:
Was that was the Lord opened her heart about…this worshiper of God?
Roland wrote: The text tells us that the Lord opened her heart to the things that Paul spoke about. It doesn’t tell us what those things were but whatever it was God OPENED HER HEART.
FOH wrote:
But Roland and others will not see or converse with this
Roland wrote: I am here right now conversing about this verse. I believe I have been available, open, and honest about discussions. I have, and am trying, to answer the questions set before me.
FOH wrote:
All of this and more has been answer MANY times on this site, other sites, books, teachings etc. They are not looking for those answers…just in an echo chamber of the same talking points.
Roland wrote:
Calvinists have been providing answers to our doctrines for almost 500 years. We have centuries of answers to those with questions. Am I looking for answers? Yes, in one sense I came to this website to figure out what provisionists believe. I think I know what they believe but I could be wrong. I’ve watched over 20 of Leighton’s videos, read one of his books, and read a lot of the articles on this site.
What have I concluded from this? First, I really believe that Leighton and his followers hate Calvinists and Calvinism. Second, I believe Leighton and his followers don’t see us as fellow Christians. The standard for Christianity in their view is that one must reject Calvinism and embrace provisionism. Third, I don’t believe Leighton was ever a real Calvinist. I don’t believe that he fully embraced Reformed theology, I believe he was probably a proponent of TULIP but beyond that he does not display sufficient knowledge of Reformed theology to cause me to believe that he was Reformed. Fourth, Leighton’s followers enjoy calling Calvinists names such as heretics, deceivers, etc. It’s too bad that Leighton’s followers have resorted to this name calling. I don’t believe it is appropriate on either side. Fifth, Leighton and his followers love to misrepresent Calvinists and Calvinism. Leighton should not do this and he should tell his followers that misrepresentations are not Christ like. Finally, I’m on the fence about this one, but I believe Leighton is just spiritually gaslighting Calvinists. Sadly, the body of Christ (wait, Calvinists may not be in it) is truly divided and each side is pointing the finger at the other. Hopefully, we can one day give a better witness to those outside of the Christ (wait, as a Calvinist some consider me to be outside of Christ).
I’ve tried to be gracious to others on this website, I hope I have. Personally, to me, Calvinism is not the measure of whether some one is a Christian or not. If I have communicated that, then I apologize. But faith in Christ is the measure of being a Christian. Blessings to all.
FOH writes, “1. [Lydia] was already down by the river at a place of prayer seeking God (Calvinist says no one seeks God…but there she was!).”
The Calvinist says that no one seeks God because they have no faith – a condition from birth – and no one can have faith apart from hearing the gospel. Jesus also said, “No one can come to (believe in) me…” and this also because of a lack of faith. However, Jesus cited and exception – “except the Father draw him.” Lydia is being drawn by God to Christ. God opens her heart to the things Paul was preaching. Paul preached the gospel. Lydia was given faith through Paul’s preaching and the rest is history.
Then, “2. The Bible calls her a “worshiper of God”. They skip over that part cuz it does not match their “all men are haters of God.”
All people are haters of God from birth because they are born without faith and can only receive faith by hearing the gospel. Lydia fits the exception of John 6:44 – God is drawing her to Christ. Even though Lydia was a worshiper of God, she was not saved and needed to hear the gospel, receive faith, and believe in Christ.
Then, “3. What was Paul’s message? We dont know.”
Yes, we do. Paul preached the gospel; Lydia received faith; Lydia was saved.
Then, ‘But Roland and others will not see or converse with this. They desperately need this passage and a handful of others (Is 10, Is 45, Eph 1:11, etc) and their interpretation of them in order to filter all the other thousands of verses through. ”
FOH denies the necessity of faith for salvation as we see in his comment. He appears to have given up Calvinism because of Calvinism’s insistence that faith is necessary to salvation.
Then, ‘”[Calvinists] are not looking for those answers…just in an echo chamber of the same talking points.”
One of those talking points is that faith is necessary for salvation – By faith, you are saved. Calvinists echo this talking point because it is absolute truth no matter how much FOH denies it.
Brian,
I forgot some more!
Calvinists will say that God is drawing Lydia, and they are right!! Christ says when He is lifted up He will draw ALL men! But just like the rich young ruler that Christ loves and calls (face to face!) … some say, no.
The problem for them is that they insist that she is a God-hater until regeneration (which apparently for them is what “opened her heart” means). So…hummm… how does that work? Ordo salutis (they do love their Latin!).
Responses to me here will insist that “God gave her faith”. When? Is that what the “opened her heart” is overused to mean? But what is she doing seeking and being called a worshiper of God for? She should be called a God-hater until regeneration!
Declarations will be made that the text says nothing about Lydia’s permission or choice…that God acts unilaterally at all times. The passage makes is clear that she is seeking God at the place of prayer and already called a worshipper of God. It only then talks about “opening her heart.”
It is only the Calvinist that sets up the strawman about “giving God permission”. That is brought in by them for accusations.
Brian,
You said:
“And they don’t “see” when they sometimes actually unwittingly agree with some truth that contradicts their theology when they are trying to support their falsehoods.”
This is one of the things that amazes me the most!
TS00 points this out so well…
We show all their statements that God determined (immutably made a reality for His pleasure) all things and we point out that this means He is the origin of all evil. They respond with a non-Calvinist line like “That makes no sense cuz the Bible says that God is not the source of evil.”
We just scratch our heads and say “Yeah, that’s the point.”
We show all the ways that they defend limited atonement and tell them they are saying God creates some for destruction and does not want all people to come to him….. and typically they will say “That makes no sense cuz the Bible says that God wants all men to come to Him.”
What? They constantly answer our explaining of their position with Arminian sounding phrases and verses. I mean it is like moving the goal posts.
Roland makes no sense here claiming that Leighton twists the words of Calvinists. I watch/read a lot of stuff and I have NEVER seen anyone let the other side present their position the way he does. I can barely stand to watch James White, cuz he is so snarky toward any other position.
How many times does Leighton start with “I have a lot of respect for Piper, MacArthur etc” ….before he shows them saying some over-the-top statement….
But, when my wife hears some of the YRR guys on line speaks so snarkily she will say to me, “they sound like the Reformed-era guys who just say ‘drown ’em!””
I think well-meaning guys like Roland can no longer hear this cuz to them it is “defending the faith.” (((It is so often the case at the abortion clinic we go to. The YRR guys use megaphones to “preach” at the women arriving. It drowns out the nearby sweet ladies —my wife included—- who are carefully offering the ladies a choice. When I ask the young bucks, they just respond that preaching the Gospel is what they are to do. It’s not their job to make it nice or “attractive”. They think of those as negative things.)))
Br.d has put so many direct quotes from Calvinists on here….but Roland just keeps saying we dont have any.
No longer worth the time!
I will just wait for the next YRR guy to come on here to show us the error of our ways, but if history holds true he will not stay long and shout “heretic” and slam the door on his way out.
I can feel that rope around my ankle now…..
About my description of the kind of God Calvinists defend, Roland says: “This is really unfair.”
I ask: By who’s standard is it unfair? Clearly, Calvi-god ordained that I should say those things, for his glory and pleasure. Are Calvinists going to claim that he is being unfair? And whom is it unfair to? To him or to Calvinists?
If it’s unfair to him, then he’s being unfair to himself for his glory and pleasure.
But if it’s unfair to Calvinists … well … Calvinists believe that everything is caused by God (Calvinism’s god) for His glory, even sin and evil, which surely includes unfairness. And if He has the right to cause anything He wants for His glory, then what gives Calvinists the right to be concerned with whether or not it’s fair to them, whether it makes them look bad or not? Is it about God’s glory or the Calvinist’s glory? If it’s for His glory, do you think He cares that it’s unfair to Calvinists if I “misrepresent” them (which I don’t think I’m doing anyway)? “Who are you, O Calvinist, to tell God what he can and cannot ordain for His glory? Who are you to tell Him what’s fair or unfair?”
(I’m not being totally sarcastic here. I’m trying to point out the bind that Calvinists put themselves in with their theology – the point of this whole Soteriology post about how Calvinists really shouldn’t be frustrated with the world.)
Heather writes, “[God] ordained that I should say those things, for his glory and pleasure.”
That God ordained Heather to do this or that does not mean that Heather is fair to people in what she does. The corrupt moneychangers were not fair in their dealings with the people prompting Jesus to chase them from the temple grounds – yet such was ordained by God. That God ordains all things means that God understands all things and has included all things into His plan so that all things accomplish His purpose. So, when God ordained Heather to be unfair to others, He has done this for His purpose. This does not mean that God is the immediate cause for her actions. Certainly God gave Heather life and in God, Heather lives and moves and has her being. God sustains Heather each day and has ordained the fulfillment of those things she asks of Him in submission to His will. God already knows the things Heather will ask of Him and has already provided those things.
Then, “Calvinists believe that everything is caused by God.”
Certainly, God created the world and did so with a perfect understanding of all that would happen in that world from its beginning to its end. It is God who withholds faith from a person until they hear the gospel preached. Without faith, a person is totally depraved and is that person described by Paul in Romans 3. That person is a product of the world and is selfish, covetous, and prideful. The immediate cause of a person’s actions is the lack of faith, and this causes people to seek sinful means to fulfill their wants and desires. God has the ability to change a person, and does so for His elect, and no one can seek God or serve Him without God first changing the person and giving him faith.
rhutchin
That God ordained Heather to do this or that does not mean that Heather is fair to people in what she does.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin for another example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern!
In this case – treating humans *AS-IF* they can be/do otherwise – than what was infallibly determined in every part by Calvin’s god
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god PERMITS the human to be otherwise than what he infallibly decrees them to be.
A Calvinist doing the very thing he claims never to do!
Calvinists have their own version of Schizophrenia! ;-D
Or is it Split Personality Disorder???
rhutchin: “That God ordained Heather to do this or that does not mean that Heather is fair to people in what she does.”
br.d: “In this case – treating humans *AS-IF* they can be/do otherwise – than what was infallibly determined in every part by Calvin’s god”
Nothing here about people behaving otherwise than God knew they would behave. The comment addressed the description of a person’s actual behavior as fair or unfair.
rhutchin
Nothing here about people behaving otherwise than God knew they would behave.
br.d
Let’s see if that is actually true
rhutchin
The comment addressed the description of a person’s actual behavior as fair or unfair.
br.d
Which Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT to be otherwise!
See!
It was about people behaving otherwise after all! :-]
br.d writes, “See! It was about people behaving otherwise after all!”
No. It was about whether to describe that behavior as fair or unfair. The behavior had already occurred and it was now a matter of describing it. Whether the person could do otherwise was rendered moot by the actual occurrence of the behavior.
br.d
See! It was about people not being PERMITTED to behave otherwise after all!”
rhutchin
No. It was about whether to describe that behavior as fair or unfair.
br.d
To OBFUSCATE the fact that Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT people to do otherwise than what he infallibly an irresistibly makes them do – is akin to lying by omission.
But while your at doing that – go ahead and call what Calvin’s god makes infallible and irresistible “unfair” if that floats your boat! :-]
And Roland denies that Calvinists have secondary, hidden meanings to verses. He can deny it if he wants to, but it doesn’t change the truth. And it’s so obvious that it’s not even worth pointing out again, but …
The Bible says Jesus died for all sins …. Calvinism adds “all the sins of the elect.”
The Bible says God loves all people … Calvinism adds “all kinds of people.”
The Bible says God wants all to be saved … Calvinism adds “All the elect” or “all kinds of people”.
The Bible says God doesn’t want anyone to perish … Calvinism says “Yeah, He doesn’t want it but He really does, for His glory.”
The Bible says to seek Him … Calvinism adds “Yeah, well, you can’t seek Him unless He makes you do it.”
The Bible says to believe in Him and be saved (born again) … Calvinism says that we have to be born again first to believe in Him.
The Bible says that when we believe in Him, we will get the Holy Spirit …. Calvinism says that we get the Holy Spirit first to make us believe.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
If Calvinists have to add an extra interpretation to very clear verses (or flip verses around to make them fit their ideas), then … yes … Calvinism has secondary, hidden layers for verses. In Calvinism, verses cannot be taken at face value; they have to be reinterpreted through their lens. It’s really sad to see the incredibly strong hold this wrong theology has on so many people.
Heather writes, “The Bible says Jesus died for all sins …. Calvinism adds “all the sins of the elect.”
The Bible says, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,” and “[Christ] bore our sins in his body on the tree.” In each case, the “our” includes the author and those to whom he was writing – i.e., believers. Thus, Christ had a specific reason for going to the cross and that was to atone for the sins of believers. At the same time, “[Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” here, “our” again refers to believers, those whom God has intervened to save ( Jesus said, “All those who the Father gives me will come to me,”) but it does not exclude any others who want to be saved and who believe in Christ. Calvinist are correct to say that Jesus died for the sins of the elect, but in dying for the sins of the elect, Christ opened the door for any others to be saved also. The issue under debate is whether any but those whom God gives to Christ will ever come to Christ. Paul seems to have shut the door on any but the elect coming to Christ when he wrote, “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?”
Heather
The Bible says Jesus died for all sins …. Calvinism adds “all the sins of the elect.
rhutchin
The Bible says, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,”
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
Christ died for “our” (and no man knows if that is me or not) sins according to the Scriptures,”
rhutchin: “The Bible says, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,”
br.d: “CALVINIST INTERPRETATION – Christ died for “our” (and no man knows if that is me or not) sins according to the Scriptures,”
Paul and Peter seem to have known as they used the term, “our,” and obviously meant to apply it to those to whom they were writing. The Calvinist understands “our” to be the elect even if only God knows their true identity.
rhutchin
“The Bible says, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,”
br.d
“CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
Christ died for “our” (and no man knows if that is me or not) sins according to the Scriptures,”
rhutchin
Paul and Peter seem to have known as they used the term, “our,” ……
br.d
You can take that up with Calvinism
John Calvin
-quote
We are NOT bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . .
(Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
We must thus consider both God’s SECRET election and his INNER call. For he alone “knows who are his” .
That’s why Calvinism calls it the INVISIBLE church.
It thus LOGICALLY follows – much of the TOTALLY DEPRAVED population of the Calvinist church is also INVISIBLE.
Rhutchin says “That God ordained Heather to do this or that does not mean that Heather is fair to people in what she does….”
Your response doesn’t answer my questions: By who’s standard is it unfair? Are Calvinists going to claim that God is being unfair (since He ordained the unfairness)? And whom is it unfair to?”
By your answer, I would assume you mean that it’s unfair by Calvinist standards and that it’s unfair to Calvinists. And I would again say “And if He has the right to cause anything He wants for His glory (according to Calvinism), then what gives Calvinists the right to be concerned with whether or not it’s fair to them, whether it makes them look bad or not? Is it about God’s glory or the Calvinist’s glory? If it’s for His glory, do you think He cares that it’s unfair to Calvinists if I “misrepresent” them (which I don’t think I’m doing anyway)?”
Your answer is a deflection of these questions and of the question of why Calvinists have a problem with (Calvinism’s) God causing unfair things for His glory. It makes no sense for a Calvinist to believe God “ordains” all things (preplans/causes/controls), but then to be upset with us for being unfair to them.
And about your example of the moneychangers’ unfairness being “ordained” by God … it’s important for readers to be aware that when a Calvinist says “ordained,” they mean “preplanned/caused/controlled by God.” So it’s not just that God “understands” what will happen or lets people be unfair for His purposes. It’s that He preplans/causes them to be unfair for His purposes. It’s not just that He “includes all things in His plans.” It’s that He preplanned all things and causes all things that happen. Therefore, any “unfairness” is planned by/caused by Calvinism’s god.
And herein lies the irony of Calvinists having a problem with anything God “ordains.” Because in Calvinism, He didn’t just “allow” it; He preplanned and caused it. And yet Calvinists dare to think that they can be upset with what God preplans/causes for His purposes and glory.
And yet, in Calvinism, Calvinists don’t even have control over whether they are upset about anything or not, because that’s controlled by Calvi-god too. He wrote the script for them, and they are just acting it out. They can’t help what they do. So, Calvinists, be upset, don’t be upset, claim it’s “unfair,” don’t claim it’s unfair … makes no difference. Calvi-god preplanned it all, you have no control over your own thoughts/actions/choices, and he causes everything that happens (good and evil, fair or unfair) for His glory and purposes.
If Calvinism is true, what a charade everything is! What a joke!
Heather wrote: i
t’s important for readers to be aware that when a Calvinist says “ordained,” they mean “preplanned/caused/controlled by God.
roland
No, Heather, what is important for readers to be aware of is that us Calvinists read what the Bible says about God, believe what the Bible says about God, and teach what the Bible says about God. It’s really not that difficult. Also, ordained in Calvinism does not have the same meaning as “preplanned/caused/controlled.”
Blessed are those you choose and bring near to live in your courts. We are filled with the good things of your house, of your holy temple Psalm 65:4
God chooses, God brings near is a clear reading of Scripture
But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations Psalm 33:11
Our God is in heaven, he does whatever pleases him Psalm 115:3
The Lord does whatever pleases him, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all their depths Psalm 135:6
No one can deliver out of my hand, When I act, who can reverse it? Isaiah 43:13
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open Revelation 3:7
Under non-Calvinist reading of these text they have to insert “what God really means” or they have to look to other verse to explain what these verses mean. Leighton does it himself. He has a video on youtube about “Decalvinizing Isaiah 10.” In the video Leighton says that God “permits” these things to happen. Isaiah 10 doesn’t say God permits, it says God sends, gives, uses Assyria as a rod of anger, etc.
Non-Calvinists have a man centered way of thinking. I know, I used to be a non-Calvinist. The non-calvinist standard of anything begins with man. That’s how they’re operating. If it’s not fair to man, then it means it cannot be true. Non-calvinists reason from man up to God, while Calvinists reason from God down to man. Our understanding of God must begin with Scripture not human reasoning, not common sense, not philosophy, not emotions, not non-scriptural analogies, etc. These are things all non-calvinists to some extent appeal to.
roland
No, Heather, what is important for readers to be aware of is that us Calvinists read what the Bible says about God
br.d
The Calvinist reads scripture THROUGH THE LENS OF THE CALVINIST SYSTEMATIC
The fact that Calvinists evade telling THE WHOLE TRUTH serves as a red-flag.
br.d
The Calvinist reads scripture THROUGH THE LENS OF THE CALVINIST SYSTEMATIC
The fact that Calvinists evade telling THE WHOLE TRUTH serves as a red-flag.
roland
“THE WHOLE TRUTH”? I don’t understand where you get this idea that Calvinists hide our beliefs. I’ve never met, read, or heard a Calvinists says, “lets cloak our language or let’s not tell the whole truth.” We are not concerned with hiding God’s truth of His sovereignty, His election of sinners, etc. We openly declare these things. Their in our confessions, sermons, books, articles, websites, etc. They’re everywhere.
1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
This is how we understand the relationship between God’s truths and the unregenerate man. It is all foolishness to the unregenerate man unless he becomes regenerate. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.
roland
“THE WHOLE TRUTH”? I don’t understand where you get this idea that Calvinists hide our beliefs.
br.d
Its quite natural for a person to not understand – what they don’t want to accept.
Roland
I’ve never met, read, or heard a Calvinists says, “lets cloak our language or let’s not tell the whole truth.”
br,d
Didn’t you learn this silly error from the last time I walked you through it?
Do you think Jehovah’s Witnesses go around saying “lets cloak our language and not tell the whole truth”?
Nevertheless – you and I both know there are parts of their doctrine they would be compelled to hide.
Roland
Non-Calvinists have a man centered way of thinking
br.d
Here it is critical to understand Calvinism’s system of CLOAKED LANGUAGE
In Calvinism – “man-centered” means “Rational thinking” ;-]
br.d
Here it is critical to understand Calvinism’s system of CLOAKED LANGUAGE
In Calvinism – “man-centered” means “Rational thinking” ;-]
roland
When Calvinists speak of man-centered thinking we are not cloaking our language. I know you believe we double speak, double minded, not telling the whole truth etc. Dr. Flowers is a perfect example of man-centered thinking. If you look at his interpretation of Ephesians 1, God’s election of sinners to be in Christ, Leighton doesn’t explain the text but he turns to analogy. That’s his choice meat analogy. Dr. Flowers cannot say God elects sinners, he has to change the meaning of the word elect, he says it not an action of God, which the text clearly teaches, its an adjective like choice. Then he gives an analogy of choice meats from the meat department at a grocery store. Dr. Flowers also does a birthday invitation analogy for John 6, which again shows he prefers analogy than the plain teaching of scripture. Dr. Flowers is reading the Bible through his systematic of provisionism.
roland
When Calvinists speak of man-centered thinking we are not cloaking our language.
br.d
Sure it is!
A large percentage of Calvinist language is CLOAKED language.
Linguists call the practice: INSIDER language.
Insiders within a guild, group, or association, know what is meant by the altered meanings they create for words and phrases within their statements. Meanings are obscured, and sentence framing guarantees the recipient’s focus is diverted from seeing something that would raise an alarm.
For Calvinists – misleading people with insider language is a pragmatic effectual way to promote and defend the vested interest.
Roland
I know you believe we double speak, double minded, not telling the whole truth etc.
br.d
AH!
But its easily observable – as more than “belief”
Because we consistently shine a flashlight on it whenever it appears here at SOT101! :-]
You claim for example – that you do not raise the Calvinist tradition of interpretation up on a pedestal and make it canon.
And yet – all of your statements (just like your last one) concerning Calvinism and scripture – consistently conflate the two and makes them one and the same.
That which is consistently INFERENTIALLY stated – is the direct opposite of that which is EXPLICITLY claimed.
And that is a perfect example of DOUBLE-SPEAK
Dr. William Lutz – what is double-speak
-quote
Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing.
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is.
It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language—communication — and what doublespeak does — mislead, distort, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.”
br.d writes, “A large percentage of Calvinist language is CLOAKED language.”
Something br.d made up to cover his ignorance of what Calvinists say as evidenced by his quoting of Calvin but never in context.
br.d
A large percentage of Calvinist language is CLOAKED language.
rhutchin
Something br.d made up to cover his ignorance of what Calvinists say as evidenced by his quoting of Calvin but never in context.
br.d
Oh I totally understand that!
Calvin’s quotes need “context” to make him say what he doesn’t say! ;-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s quotes need “context” to make him say what he doesn’t say! ”
Calvin’s quotes need “context” so that people do not purposely distort what he says.
br.d
“Calvin’s quotes need “context” to make him say what he doesn’t say! ”
rhutchin
Calvin’s quotes need “context” so that people do not purposely distort what he says.
br.d
I’ll simply posts Calvin’s quotes and let SOT101 readers discern for themselves – if his statements need additional context to understand.
Its your job to massage his statements – to make them APPEAR to not say what he does say! :-]
br.d writes, “Its your job to massage his statements – to make them APPEAR to not say what he does say! ”
If you quote Calvin, it is your job to provide the context for the quoted material to avoid distortion of his argument.
rhutchin
If you quote Calvin, it is your job to provide the context for the quoted material to avoid distortion of his argument.
br.d
I’m happy to let SOT101 readers – read those quotes – and discern for themselves if any additional context is needed
Its your job to be a SEMANTIC contortion artist – in order to his words not mean what they mean – or make him not say what he says.
And to be honest – I must compliment you on your performance ;-]
br.d: “I’m happy to let SOT101 readers – read those quotes – and discern for themselves if any additional context is needed”
LOL!!! Yeah when context is necessary to discern the adequacy of the quote.
br.d
I’m happy to let SOT101 readers – read those quotes – and discern for themselves if any additional context is needed”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Yeah when context is necessary to discern the adequacy of the quote
br.d
You’ve tried that before – and we both know it didn’t work.
Calvin’s statements are simply enough to understand :-]
br.d
Too funny!
Anyone who knows what is behind Calvinism’s MASKS
Will recognize your list – as some of the MASKS Calvinists use to HIDE the UNPALATABLE TRUTHS :-]
Roland – you looked at that MEME picture of the girl saying “You were predestined to misunderstand Calvinism – How Dare you!”
You indicated that you found it insulting.
I asked you if you were able to discern DOUBLE-THINK in it?
For some reason – you never answered that question.
Would it not be easy for anyone to understand why?
br.d
You indicated that you found it insulting.
I asked you if you were able to discern DOUBLE-THINK in it?
For some reason – you never answered that question.
Would it not be easy for anyone to understand why?
roland
Yes I did understand it as I understand your last meme. The reason why I did not answer your meme with Greta was that I did not feel the need to do so. I believe it is wrong to mischaracterize a person’s personal beliefs. I heard Leighton answer the charge that his theology is man centered by saying, “Yes, my theology is man-centered. It’s centered on the man Jesus Christ!”
Now if I took that statement and made the argument that Leighton denied Christ’s deity, would that be fair? Would that be fair to Leighton’s whole theology?
I would say no but non-calvinists do it a lot. They take a portion of our beliefs, then turn them into something we don’t believe, and say, “see, that’s what Calvinists REALLY believe.”
Then there is the persistent accusation that we HIDE THE UNPALATABLE parts of Calvinism. Or we CLOAK our beliefs. These accusations are not true and you can’t find a single prominent Calvinist who will alter the meaning of words to fit our system. Leighton did with Isaiah 10 and Ephesians 1. In Leighton’s system God cannot “send” the Assyrians, God can only “let” the Assyrians… In Ephesians God does not elect as a verb but the word elect is an adjective like “choice” meats. Leighton does it, not Calvinists. Dr. Flowers is INSERTING words into text that are not there. Another false accusation.
br.d
You indicated that you found it insulting.
I asked you if you were able to discern DOUBLE-THINK in it?
For some reason – you never answered that question.
Would it not be easy for anyone to understand why?
roland
Yes I did understand it as I understand your last meme. The reason why I did not answer your meme with Greta was that I did not feel the need to do so.
br.d
Se me asking you if you saw DOUBLE-THINK that MEME – didn’t give you any reason to answer?
What does that tell me?
Roland
Then there is the persistent accusation that we HIDE THE UNPALATABLE parts of Calvinism. Or we CLOAK our beliefs. These accusations are not true
br.d
What you call “accusation” numerous SOT101 readers call “observation”
All one need do is read the numerous posts here by Calvinists
And the UNPALATABLE TRUTHS which Calvinists attempt to HIDE become clear.
br.d writes, ‘And the UNPALATABLE TRUTHS which Calvinists attempt to HIDE become clear.”
Here are some UNPALATABLE TRUTHS that br.d claims Calvinist attempt to hide when they are in plain sight.
– God has perfect understanding.
– God is omniscient
– God is omnipotent
– God is omnipresent
– Faith is required for salvation
– No one is born with faith
– Without faith a person is totally depraved
– God chooses whom to save before the person is born and has done evil or good
– God gives those He has chosen to Christ
– Those God gives to Christ will believe in Christ
– God draws to Christ those He has given to Christ
– God sent Christ to the cross to reconcile to Himself those that God had chosen to give to Christ
– God irresistibly gives faith to those He has chosen to give to Christ
– God begins the work of salvation in His elect
– God preserves His elect and they will not be lost
Maybe br.d has some REAL unpalatable truths that Calvinists REALLY try to hide
rhutchin wrote:
Maybe br.d has some REAL unpalatable truths that Calvinists REALLY try to hide
roland
I’m still waiting to see some of those UNPALATABLE truths as well. I’m also waiting on the examples of Calvinists twisting Scripture, altering meanings of words, etc. Of all things non-calvinists accuse Calvinists of doing, I have yet to see one example.
roland
I’m still waiting to see some of those UNPALATABLE truths as well.
br.d
Well – the ones I’ve given you from Calvin himself – you say you don’t embrace.
And of course – the reason for that is obvious!!
But you must effectively deny Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees in order to do that.
And of course – the reason for that is obvious!!
If you don’t like analogies – then you are surely not going to like Jesus’ parables! :-]
br.d
If you don’t like analogies – then you are surely not going to like Jesus’ parables! :-]
roland
I’ll take Jesus’ analogies any day over Dr. Flowers’s analogies. Jesus’s parables are straight from the mouth of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, while Dr. Flowers’s analogies are from a man. :-] There’s no comparison.
roland
I’ll take Jesus’ analogies any day over Dr. Flowers’s analogies. Jesus’s parables are straight from the mouth of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, while Dr. Flowers’s analogies are from a man. :-] There’s no comparison.
br.d
Well – according to that line of reasoning – your not going to like any analogy from Paul, or Peter, or James, or John!
Cuz they are men – and three is no comparison! :-]
br.d
Here it is critical to understand Calvinism’s system of CLOAKED LANGUAGE
In Calvinism – “man-centered” means “Rational thinking” ;-]
roland
Another instance of misrepresentation of Calvinism. I explained what we believe regarding man-centered theology in my post to Heather. Calvinist do not reject rational thinking. Our position is that rational thinking is a tool to help us understand God’s Word but it is not superior to God’s Word. I would refer you to Francis Turretin for a deeper explanation of the relationship between faith and reason. Turretin objects to this statement, “Man is not bound to believe what reason dictates to be false.” This statement was made by a man who rejected the Trinity, Christ’s Incarnation and satisfaction for sin because to him, it was not reasonable and could not be accepted by the human mind. Turretin’s position is that the first principle of Christianity is faith, reason follows faith.
br.d
Here it is critical to understand Calvinism’s system of CLOAKED LANGUAGE
In Calvinism – “man-centered” means “Rational thinking” ;-]
roland
Another instance of misrepresentation of Calvinism.
br.d
Not for someone who understands – that what the Non-Calvinist calls “Rational Thinking” the Calvinist will call “Man-centered” thinking.
And not covering the face of Calvinism with a COSMETIC MASK can technically be called a “misrepresentation”
Because one’s enunciation failed to provide the COSMETIC MASK.
This gives us a better understanding of the SUBTLE MEANINGS which are often BURIED within Calvinist language.
br.d: “In Calvinism – “man-centered” means “Rational thinking” ”
Actually, in Calvinism, “man-centered” means “Irrational thinking” as it decreases God’s role. What could be more irrational than giving man more power than God?
rhutchin
Actually, in Calvinism, “man-centered” means “Irrational thinking” as it decreases God’s role.
br.d
Calvinists do love their DOUBLE-SPEAK!
It is in fact – Calvin’s god’s role – that the Calvinist spends most of his time tying to HIDE behind SEMANTIC MASKS
That is what the Calvinist calls “god centered”
What a hoot! ;-D
br.d writes, “It is in fact – Calvin’s god’s role – that the Calvinist spends most of his time tying to HIDE behind SEMANTIC MASKS
That is what the Calvinist calls “god centered””
br.d displays his active imagination again.
br.d
It is in fact – Calvin’s god’s role – that the Calvinist spends most of his time tying to HIDE behind SEMANTIC MASKS
That is what the Calvinist calls “god centered”” :-]
rhutchin
br.d displays his active imagination again.
br.d
Too funny!
All I have to do is wait for one of your next posts – as your next future example! 😀
It never fails!
Heather writes, “Your response doesn’t answer my questions: By who’s standard is it unfair?”
In Romans, Paul writes, “It is good to not eat meat, drink wine, nor do anything by which your brother stumbles, is offended, or is made weak.” In Corinthians, “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no meat forevermore, that I don’t cause my brother to stumble.”
So you wrote “Calvinists are trying to defend the idea that God has hidden layers and secondary meanings for the things He says, that He says one thing but means another,…” Roland responded, “This is really unfair.” Given that your original statement was general and lacking any specifics (and given the examples, you have provided elsewhere, subject to interpretation), the offended party, in this case, Roland, determines what is fair. If your purpose was not to cause Roland to stumble, then you should back off. If, however, you see this as an instance of gross misunderstanding of the Scripture, then you should provide the Scripture that is relevant and apply it to substantiate your point. In this case, you should show that Calvinists actually do say that “God has hidden layers and secondary meanings for the things He says” and show where the Scripture says the opposite. Roland sets the standard since he is the abused party and you need to prove your case.
Then, ‘when a Calvinist says “ordained,” they mean “preplanned/caused/controlled by God.” So it’s not just that God “understands” what will happen or lets people be unfair for His purposes. It’s that He preplans/causes them to be unfair for His purposes.”
Thus, Paul says, “Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” Let’s take the phrase, “who are outside” to mean those disagreeing on what the Scriptures say on a subject as you and Roland do. So, God in His understanding, knew that people in the church would disagree on the meaning of Scripture. The solution was for each side to the disagreement to letting their arguments (or speech) be seasoned with grace (or the scriptures for in them grace is found). As the proverb says, “Iron sharpens iron; So a man sharpens his friend’s countenance.” God intended that His elect discuss the Scriptures, explaining their differing views and eventually come to a common understanding. If Roland says you made an unfair statement, then it is your part to explain, through the Scriptures, the reasons you think you are correct.
Then, ‘in Calvinism, [God] didn’t just “allow” it; He preplanned and caused it. And yet Calvinists dare to think that they can be upset with what God preplans/causes for His purposes and glory. :”
Yes, God understood all that was to happen in His creation and He had already planned where He would involve Himself and where He would not. Obviously, a major way in which God involved Himself was by ordaining the birth of people who would be without faith, thus totally depraved, until such time as He began a good work in them. Calvinists are not upset with God for what they see happening in the world; they are upset with sinful people who sin by treating people one way and demanding that people treat them the opposite way. I think God planned it that way to get people to realize their complete helplessness and cause them to rely on Him for a solution and to accept His solution as was the case with Habakkuk.
rhuthcin
rhuthcin
Yes, God understood all that was to happen in His creation and He had already planned where He would involve Himself
br.d
Thank you rhutchin for another beautiful example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern!
In this case *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s understanding of all that was to happen – WAS NOT by virtue of meticulously determining every nano-second of it – along with every part of every impulse that could ever come to pass within any human brain.
Its so entertaining to watch someone who can’t stop himself from doing what he claims not to do! ;-D
br.d writes, “In this case *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s understanding of all that was to happen – WAS NOT by virtue of meticulously determining every nano-second of it – along with every part of every impulse that could ever come to pass within any human brain.”
Ephesians 1 tells us, “God works all things after the counsel of his will;” God’s understanding is the basis for the counsel of His will and necessarily precedes His works. God’s decree to create the world was comprehensive, so God knew at that time all that was to happen in His creation from beginning to end. Even Dr. Flowers admits this.
rhutchin
God’s understanding is the basis for the counsel of His will and necessarily precedes His works.
br.d
Which in Calvinism simply means all sins and evils which he will make people infallibly and irresistibly do – are FIRST CONCEIVED in his mind. And thus function as the counsel of his will.
Dr. Flowers understands in Calvinism
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSE he PERMITS
2) What Calvin’s god does NOT CAUSE – he does NOT PERMIT
As Calvin states it:
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
br.d
Which in Calvinism simply means all sins and evils which he will make people infallibly and irresistibly do – are FIRST CONCEIVED in his mind. And thus function as the counsel of his will.
roland
I need to correct the misunderstandings in your statement. First, God doesn’t MAKE people sin. They want to sin just like in Isaiah 10, when God sends the Assyrians to do God’s will, the Assyrian are not thinking of God’s judgment but “it is in his heart to destroy.” God is using the Assyrians to destroy but God is not doing the destroying. Second, expanding on my first point, God doesn’t make anyone irresistible to sin. God can just withhold the grace needed not to sin or just allow it to happen. Calvinists also believe and confess that God is not the author of sin as the Bible teaches.
br.d wrote
Dr. Flowers understands in Calvinism
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSE he PERMITS
2) What Calvin’s god does NOT CAUSE – he does NOT PERMIT
roland
Now I really notice how much Dr. Flowers misunderstands Calvinism. It is more than causes and permits. God’s will is accomplished through more than just permission or causation.
br.d
As Calvin states it:
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
roland
I don’t know where this is from in the Institutes because some context would be helpful. Yes, God is the primary and supreme cause of all things. If there is one thing that does not come from God, then God is not the primary and supreme cause of all things. But Scripture teaches us otherwise.
Romans 11:36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
Colossians 1:15-17
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Yes, the Triune God of Scripture is the creator of all things in heaven, on earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers.
roland
First, God doesn’t MAKE people sin. They want to sin
br.d
And how does that impulse come to pass within a person’s brain – if it is not MADE to come to pass by infallible decree?
Why can’t you speak the WHOLE TRUTH?
Roland
God doesn’t make anyone sin irresistibly
br.d
You can prove that – by telling me if your brain is EVER PERMITTED to resist an infallible decree
Good luck with that! :-]
Roland
God is not the author of sin
br.d
Calvinist Vincent Cheung
-quote
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the “author of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin.” And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of self-determination.
John Calvin
-quote
But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely PERMITS them, when scripture shows him not only willing but the AUTHOR of them.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 176)
John Calvin
-quote
“It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not
by His will, but MERELY by His permission.” (institutes)
Dr. Flowers understands in Calvinism
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSE he PERMITS
2) What Calvin’s god does NOT CAUSE – he does NOT PERMIT
roland
Now I really notice how much Dr. Flowers misunderstands Calvinism. It is more than causes and permits. God’s will is accomplished through more than just permission or causation.
br.d
Well – if you understand (1) and (2) above – then you know that for Calvin divine permission equates to divine causation.
For Calvin – there is no such thing as “MERE” permission.
And Calvinist Vincent Cheung (see quote above) is being INTELLECTUALLY HONEST when he connects those dots
As Calvin states it:
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
roland
I don’t know where this is from in the Institutes because some context would be helpful.
br.d
If you have the institutes – its easy enough to look.
But anyone who is willing to think examine Calvin’s statements about permission will see that divine permission in Calvinism equate to divine causation.
Roland
Yes, the Triune God of Scripture is the creator of *ALL* things
Br.d
In Calvin’s god’s case – not only the creator – but also the FIRST CONCIEVER and DETERMINER of *ALL* things – including *ALL* sins and evils.
NOTHING is “MERELY” permitted.
Everything is CAUSED.
Is that palatable to you? :-]
Br.d
Not only the creator – but also the FIRST CONCIEVER and DETERMINER of *ALL* things – including *ALL* sins and evils.
NOTHING is “MERELY” permitted.
Everything is CAUSED.
Is that palatable to you? :-]
roland
Never heard of Vincent Cheung I’ll have to look him up. Is it palatable that God is the author of sin? No because Scripture teaches otherwise, James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. God ordained whatsoever comes to pass. Does this include sin? Yes but you take it as meaning that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin, when we don’t believe He is the author of sin. He ordained it but it’s not like God is going around causing everyone to lie, cheat, steal, He doesn’t do that. Neither are we just puppets and God is pulling the strings and neither are we robots that God has put a program into.
When Satan attacked Job, what did Satan have to do first? He had to ask God for permission. God did not have to MAKE Satan have this desire, it was already there. Did God ordain that Satan would do what he do? Yes but God doesn’t cause it. He’s not controlling Satan like a puppet or robot because God doesn’t need to as Satan has his own desires.
The problem is Calvinists make a distinction between God determining or ordaining things and causing things,YOU DON’T, so, according to YOUR understanding, Calvinists must do according to YOU, we must think like YOU or else we’re just WRONG.
Our argument is simple:
1. God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, all things including sin
2. Yet He is not the author of sin as Scripture teaches James 1:13,17 and 1 John 1:5
I ask, show me from Scripture where the Calvinists is wrong in our beliefs. Show me from Scripture that God is not in control, man has libertarian freewill, that God is the author of sin, that there are things outside of God’s dominion, God can only give permission.
roland
Is it palatable that God is the author of sin? No because Scripture teaches otherwise,
br.d
According to John Calvin – you are wrong.
Roland
God ordained whatsoever comes to pass. Does this include sin?
br.d
Here the word “ordained” in the context of Calvinism – is misleading – and can be considered distancing language
Lets replace the word “ordained” with “MAKES Whatsoever comes to pass do so INFALLIBLY and thus Irresistibly.”
Thus we have – Calvin’s god MAKES Whatsoever comes to pass do so INFALLIBLY and thus Irresistibly.
Does this include sins and evils?
Obviously – because the word “Whatsoever” entails determinism is EXHAUSTIVE
Rolan
Yes but you take it as meaning that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin
br.d
As does John Calvin – and as does Calvinist Vincent Cheung – and as does other Calvinist.
Roland
, when we don’t believe He is the author of sin.
br.d
When you say “we” you are being dishonest to speak for anyone else but yourself and/or some compliment of professing Calvinists.
You obviously do not speak for John Calvin’s Calvinism – and you obviously do not speak for Vincent Cheung’s Calvinism
To assume to speak for ALL Calvinists is therefore dishonest
Roland
God ….causing everyone to lie, cheat, steal, He doesn’t do that.
br.d
The formula is quite simple
No infallible decree for impulse [X] to come to pass – equals no impulse [X] coming to pass.
The fact that you are trying to HIDE that – tells me this is one of those UNPALATABLE TRUTHS I never told you about! :-]
Roland
neither are we robots that God has put a program into.
br.d
You can prove that – when you can name just one impulse which has ever come to pass within your brain that wasn’t AUTHORED by an infallible decree.
Good luck with that! :-]
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions” (The Doctrine of Divine Decree)
Roland
When Satan attacked Job, what did Satan have to do first? He had to ask God for permission.
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly……can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how
they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He……COMMANDS
They are not only bound by His fetters but are even FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
John Calvin
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He INSPIRES (A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they are merely instruments, into which god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and TURNS and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN of each of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of God (The Providence of God pg 22)
Roland
God did not have to MAKE Satan have this desire, it was already there.
br.d
FALSE!
In Calvinism – nothing comes to pass without it being brought into existence by an infallible decree.
When was the last time your brain resisted an infallible decree?
You never answered that question
And the reason is obvious.
Why can’t you tell the WHOLE TRUTH?
Roland
I ask, show me from Scripture where the Calvinists is wrong in our beliefs.
br.d
You need to ask that question to Calvinists like John Calvin – and other Calvinists like Vincent Cheung – whom I would say are more forthright about Calvinism than you are.
br.d
Calvinist Vincent Cheung
-quote
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the “author of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin.” And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of self-determination.
roland
Found Cheung, read through his online material about God is the author of sin. Here are my thoughts following some quotes:
“That is, if God directly causes you to sin, it indeed makes him the “author” of sin, but the “sinner” or “wrongdoer” is still you. Since sin is the transgression of divine law, for God to be a sinner or wrongdoer in this case, he must decree a moral law that forbids himself to be the author of sin, and then when he acts as the author of sin anyway, he becomes a sinner or wrongdoer.”
I think Cheung is in agreement with me as he writes, “the sinner or wrongdoer is still you.” It sounds like he is not attributing sin to God. According to your quote from Cheung you make it sound like that is what Chueng believes. In order for God to sin, there must be a law that God is transgressing that forbids himself to be the author of sin.
“And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil spirits to tempt (1 Kings 22:19–23) and to torment (1 Samuel 16:14–23, 18:10, 19:9). But in all of this, God is righteous by definition.”
I can agree with Cheung, “But in all of this, God is righteous by definition.”
“The verse is telling you that when you deal with temptation, you must directly address your lust, and not just blame God and then do nothing, or remain in your sin.”
Cheung seems to be in line with most Calvinists.
“Instead of giving the popular answer, which is weak, evasive, incoherent, and confusing, God unashamedly declares, “Yes, I do all these things. What are you going to do about it? Who are you to even ask me about it?” When it comes to metaphysics, including God’s relationship to human decisions, whether for good or for evil, this is how the Bible responds.”
I can agree with Cheung here. Who are we humans to ask God about His actions? Where I do disagree with him is his initial answer to the charge that God is the author of sin. I do disagree with his approach, I understand what he’s doing but I disagree. Cheung goes on to quote Romans 9:19-21 and his ultimate reliance on Scripture is another point of agreement with him.
You really misrepresented what Cheung is ultimately saying. You presented him as being a logically consistent Calvinist that must make God the author of sin. He does so no such thing. I would say that Cheung is coming from the more extreme side of Calvinism regarding not belief but his approach to challenges to Calvinism.
Roland
I think Cheung is in agreement with me
br.d
Then you agree with him when he says:
Calvinists writh on the floor and and twist and turn trying to give man some degree of self-determination in order to say Calvin’s god is not the author of sin.
br.d
Then you agree with him when he says:
Calvinists writh on the floor and and twist and turn trying to give man some degree of self-determination in order to say Calvin’s god is not the author of sin.
roland
Sadly, you take a very shortsighted view of what Cheung is saying. I answered this in another post. I agree with him overall but I disagree with his approach and his understanding of answering non-calvinists objections to Calvinism. No, I disagree with him as I don’t writhe on the floor and twist and turn as he wrote. I actually drop my head in frustration that noncalvinists do not understand us. I really wish that non-calvinists would at least read a reformed confession along with their Bibles to understand our position better. Then after spending some time contemplating and praying about Calvinist claims, then should they make a decision.
I spent at least two years studying Calvinism before I came to the conclusion that the Calvinistic interpretation is the closest interpretation of Scripture. And I’m still struggling with issues about Calvinistic interpretation and I’m open to other options but I’ve yet found one that is more biblical than Calvinism.
br.d
Then you agree with him when he says:
Calvinists writh on the floor and and twist and turn trying to give man some degree of self-determination in order to say Calvin’s god is not the author of sin.
roland
Sadly, you take a very shortsighted view of what Cheung is saying.
br.d
Did he not say that Calvinists writh on the floor and twist and turn trying to give man some degree of self-determination in order to say Calvin’s god is not the author of sin – or not?
A simple YES or NO is the honest answer.
I suspect that is something you would never say – because you would find it UNPALATABLE.
Obviously – you and Vincent Cheung do not agree on that! :-]
br.d
Did he not say that Calvinists writh on the floor and twist and turn trying to give man some degree of self-determination in order to say Calvin’s god is not the author of sin – or not?
A simple YES or NO is the honest answer.
I suspect that is something you would never say – because you would find it UNPALATABLE.
Obviously – you and Vincent Cheung do not agree on that! :-]
roland
Yes, Cheung did but I disagree with him and how he approaches the issue of God being the author of sin. It is not that I find it UNPALATABLE but it is that I find it UNSCRIPTURAL. Scripture does not say that God is the author of sin, it’s says the opposite. Cheung did not say that God is the author of sin and all Calvinists will say that God is not the author of sin. Cheung’s is talking about how Calvinist approach this charge that Calvinism makes God the author of sin.
Let me explain Cheung’s approach to the charge that Calvinism makes God the author of sin. I’ve read and heard other Calvinists argue just as Cheung does. Cheung’s is taking an approach from the character of God, that is God is righteous and all that He does is righteous. I agree with Cheung on this point. It is I could say, at least, 99.9% of Calvinists would agree, God is righteous and everything God does is righteous. It is an argument from God’s character.
I would not start there, that is the argument from God’s character, I would start as the Westminster Confession of Faith does, from the Scriptural perspective that God is not the author of sin, James 1:13,17; 1 John 1:5. The only difference between Cheung and I is the starting point of defending Calvinism. That’s it, nothing more. You are reading too much into Cheung because you do not understand Calvinism.
roland
Yes, Cheung did
But I disagree with him and how he approaches the issue of God being the author of sin.
br.d
Thank you for an honest answer!
So then Calvin’s god as the AUTHOR of whatsoever comes to pass is undeniable.
And Calvin’s god as the CAUSE of decrees – which determine every impulse that will come to pass in the human brain – to come to pass infallibly and thus irresistibly is undeniable.
Roland
It is not that I find it UNPALATABLE but it is that I find it UNSCRIPTURAL.
br.d
So then for your – Calvin’s god being the AUTHOR of whatsoever comes to pass is UNSCRIPTURAL
And Calvin’s god being the CAUSE of decrees which determine every impulse to come to pass infallibly is UNSCRIPTURAL
Your job now – is to figure out how to declare that – while still calling yourself a Calvinist! ;-D
br.d
So then for your – Calvin’s god being the AUTHOR of whatsoever comes to pass is UNSCRIPTURAL
And Calvin’s god being the CAUSE of decrees which determine every impulse to come to pass infallibly is UNSCRIPTURAL
Your job now – is to figure out how to declare that – while still calling yourself a Calvinist! ;-D
roland
that’s easy just read the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3 Of God’s Eternal Decree. I accept that as a valid description of God’s eternal decree along with most Calvinists.
I would also disagree with the way you are parsing my statements together for FRAME your own interpretation of my statements.
br.d
So then for your – Calvin’s god being the AUTHOR of whatsoever comes to pass is UNSCRIPTURAL
And Calvin’s god being the CAUSE of decrees which determine every impulse to come to pass infallibly is UNSCRIPTURAL
roland
that’s easy just read the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3 Of God’s Eternal Decree.
br.d
So now the Westminster Confession says those things are UNSCRIPTURAL!!
What a hoot! :-]
Roland
I accept that as a “valid description” of God’s eternal decree along with most Calvinists.
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
“valid description” = “white-wash” and COSMETIC MASK :-]
Roland
I would also disagree with the way you are parsing my statements together for FRAME your own interpretation of my statements.
br.d
That’s understandable.
I don’t adhere to the white-washing language patterns
Therefore I deviate from the Calvinist’s FRAMING and interpretation.
HERE IS WISDOM
A sure way to discern white-washing and COSMETIC MASKS is to ask: Is it TRUE or is it FALSE? It can’t be both.
The process of someone needing [X] to be TRUE when he needs it to be TRUE – and FALSE when he needs it to be FALSE – serves as a sure indicator.
And when language is designed to make the TRUTH-VALUE of something become amorphous
Look for indicators of an UNPALATABLE TRUTH.
Roland writes, “that’s easy just read the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3 Of God’s Eternal Decree. ”
Chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession:
III. Of God’s Eternal Decree
1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (Acts 15:18, 1 Sam. 23:11–12, Matt. 11:21, 23) yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18)
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (1 Tim. 5:21, Matt. 25:41) are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Rom. 9:22–23, Eph. 1:5–6, Prov. 16:4)
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (2 Tim. 2:19, John 13:18)
5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, (Eph. 1:4, 9, 11, Rom. 8:30, 2 Tim. 1:9, 1 Thess. 5:9) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: (Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, Eph. 1:4, 9) and all to the praise of His glorious grace. (Eph. 1:6, 12)
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. (1 Pet. 1:2, Eph. 1:4–5, Eph. 2:10, 2 Thess. 2:13) Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, (1 Thess. 5:9–10, 1 Tit. 2:14) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified,adopted, sanctified, (Rom. 8:30, Eph. 1:5, 2 Thess. 2:13) and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. (1 Pet. 1:5) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (John 17:9, Rom. 8:28, John 6:64–65, John 10:26, John 8:47, 1 John 2:19)
7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or witholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Matt. 11:25–26, Rom. 9:17–18, 21–22, 2 Tim. 2:19–20, Jude 4, 1 Pet. 2:8)
8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, (Rom. 9:20, Rom. 11:33, Deut. 29:29) that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. (2 Pet. 1:10) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; (Eph. 1:6, Rom. 11:33) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel. (Rom. 11:5, 6, 20, 2 Pet. 1:10, Rom. 8:33, Luke 10:20)
rhutchin
The doctrine of this HIGH MYSTERY of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,
br.d
VERY CAREFULLY!!! ;-D
br.d
And how does that impulse come to pass within a person’s brain – if it is not MADE to come to pass by infallible decree?
Why can’t you speak the WHOLE TRUTH?
roland
What I am going to write will not be the WHOLE TRUTH as you see it. Here is what I will say as I believe I’ve said before: God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass but He is not the author of sin. Yes, that impulse comes by God’s decree but it’s not like God is there causing the person’s brain and impulse to come to pass. I don’t know how to explain it any further. Calvinists make a distinction between God’s infallible decree and causation. You don’t and as long as you cannot accept our belief, as long as you press your belief and understating on us, we will never come to an understanding. You will continually say, “Calvinists don’t tell the whole truth, they’re double minded, they double speak, etc…” because you don’t understand what we are saying.
You see, I can read Cheung, I can see the words he is using along with the Bible verses and I understand him. I don’t think you can do this because first, you reject Calvinism, and second, I might be wrong, but you have not taken time to read Calvinism to understand what we are saying. That’s why I came to this website and watch Dr. Flowers to understand provisionism. I think I get it. My problem with provisionism is that it does not go far enough. I think Arminians are closer to a biblical understanding of salvation than provisionism. Provisionism does not express enough biblical truth to convince me, too many open questions, Arminians get close but Calvinism goes all the way.
br.d
And how does that impulse come to pass within a person’s brain – if it is not MADE to come to pass by infallible decree?
Why can’t you speak the WHOLE TRUTH?
roland
What I am going to write will not be the WHOLE TRUTH as you see it.
br.d
Just answer the question – did Calvin’s god MAKE that impulse come to pass infallibly and irresistibly or not?
A simple YES or NO is the honest answer.
Roland
Here is what I will say as I believe I’ve said before: God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass
br.d
Here you are using the word “ordained” again – which in this context is misleading.
Lets speak the TRUTH.
We will replace the word “ordains” with “Makes whatsoever comes to pass – do so infallibly and therefore irresistibly”
Therefore we have:
“Calvin’s god makes whatsoever comes to pass – do so infallibly and therefore irresistibly”
Roland
but He is not the author of sin.
br.d
Is he the AUTHOR of whatsoever impulses come to pass irresistibly in your brain or not?
A simple YES or NO is the honest answer
Roland
Yes, that impulse comes by God’s decree but it’s not like God is there causing the person’s brain and impulse to come to pass. I don’t know how to explain it any further.
br.d
Right!
So its easy to see what you find UNPALATABLE.
Calvin’s god MAKES every impulse come to pass infallibly and thus irresistibly.
Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT any alternative impulse come to pass – at pain of falsifying the infallible decree.
You are NOT PERMITTED and NOT FREE to be/do otherwise than what is infallibly decreed
And EVERY impulse that comes to pass in your brain is infallibly decreed.
But you don’t want to call him the AUTHOR or say he CAUSES those things.
I think we get the picture! :-]
br.d
I think we get the picture! :-]
roland
Yes, I know you get the picture as it is in YOUR FRAME. That’s how you get it as you understand it. Until I agree with how you understand Calvinism, we will always be in disagreement. I will always be HIDING THE TRUTH and rejecting the UNPALATABLE PARTS of Calvinism. WHAT EVER YOU SAY, SO IT WILL BE, and SO SHOULD IT BE!
roland
Yes, I know you get the picture as it is in YOUR FRAME. That’s how you get it as you understand it. Until I agree with how you understand Calvinism, we will always be in disagreement. I will always be HIDING THE TRUTH and rejecting the UNPALATABLE PARTS of Calvinism. WHAT EVER YOU SAY, SO IT WILL BE, and SO SHOULD IT BE!
br.d
Yes – that is the picture.
But its more than a matter of it being “whatever I say”
And you are right – when you refer to how it is FRAMED.
I don’t white-wash Calvinism – or put a COSMETIC MASK on its face.
Which means I don’t FRAME it the way the Calvinist does.
Thus I don’t represent it the way he does.
Thus when he says I misrepresent it – that simply means I don’t represent it the way he does. :-]
br.d
Yes – that is the picture.
But its more than a matter of it being “whatever I say”
And you are right – when you refer to how it is FRAMED.
I don’t white-wash Calvinism – or put a COSMETIC MASK on its face.
Which means I don’t FRAME it the way the Calvinist does.
Thus I don’t represent it the way he does.
Thus when he says I misrepresent it – that simply means I don’t represent it the way he does. :-]
roland
Yes, you do misrepresent Calvinism. Why? I don’t know but to me it is obvious you don’t understand us. We don’t WHITE-WASH Calvinism as you claim and neither do we put a COSMETIC MASK on its face. Yes, you don’t FRAME it as we do.
You have to understand this: in order for a person to interact with Calvinism, they NEED to or HAVE to interact with the LANGUAGE we are using. As long as this is violated, there will always be MISUNDERSTANDING, hence, disagreement.
It is the same with Christianity. Think about our doctrine and belief of the Trinity. If a person does not understand what we believe about the Trinity, then there will always be disagreement. Always. This is why I always encourage non-calvinists to read some Calvinistic literature, such as a Reformed confession, along with their Bible, then come to a conclusion. And after reading their Bible along with a Reformed confession, they come to a conclusion, I would like to know how much they understand of Reformed belief. If it sounds as if they could summarize our beliefs and reject it, then and only then, would I say, they have a valid rejection of Reformed Christianity. I don’t believe a large percentage of people on soteriology101 do this.
roland
Yes, you do misrepresent Calvinism. Why? I don’t know but to me it is obvious you don’t understand us.
br.d
This reminds me of the girl who is getting violently beaten by her boyfriend – trying to convince her concerned parents that her boyfriend loves her and would never hurt her – and they JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND him. ;-]
Roland
We don’t WHITE-WASH Calvinism as you claim and neither do we put a COSMETIC MASK on its face.
br.d
Well there are plenty of Calvinist posts here – with which the discerning SOT101 reader can review
A whole lot of white-washing and COSMETIC MASKS become obvious.
I’m happy to let SOT101 readers discern it for themselves.
Unlike Calvinists – I don’t need to tell people what to think.
Roland
Yes, you don’t FRAME it as we do.
br.d
BINGO!
And all one need do in analyzing the way Calvinists FRAME it – is to recognize how Calvinism’s dark concepts are carefully hidden behind a library of SEMANTIC MASKS.
Roland
You have to understand this: in order for a person to interact with Calvinism, they NEED to or HAVE to interact with the LANGUAGE we are using. As long as this is violated, there will always be MISUNDERSTANDING, hence, disagreement.
br.d
That is called accepting dishonesty
It is in fact Calvinism’s language – which serves as a RED-FLAG that something is wrong with it.
Calvinist language is marketing language designed to hide more than it reveals.
Roland
It is the same with Christianity. Think about our doctrine and belief of the Trinity. If a person does not understand what we believe about the Trinity, then there will always be disagreement.
br.d
Now your getting even less honest!
You’ve already acknowledge that it is the way the Calvinist FRAMES it.
But then you revert back to claiming that someone doesn’t UNDERSTAND it.
This is what the girl whose boyfriend violently beats her would say.
She wants her parents to UNDERSTAND it – the way she does.
But the TRUTH is – they understand it all too well!
br.d
This reminds me of the girl who is getting violently beaten by her boyfriend – trying to convince her concerned parents that her boyfriend loves her and would never hurt her – and they JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND him. ;-]
roland
That’s a horrible analogy. Calvinists are not violently beaten anyone up. This is one of common tactics of non-calvinists: appeal to emotions. Non-calvinists think that an emotional response is equivalent to something being false. At least that’s how they try to win the argument.
br.d
This reminds me of the girl who is getting violently beaten by her boyfriend – trying to convince her concerned parents that her boyfriend loves her and would never hurt her – and they JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND him. ;-]
roland
That’s a “horrible” analogy. Calvinists are not violently beaten anyone up
br.d
You got part of it right!
It is “horrible” – just as John Calvin acknowledges about the infallible decrees
But the reason he calls it “horrible” is not because Calvinists make it that.
Because the Calvinist is the recipient of the “horrible” decree – not the perpetrator of it.
HERE IS WISDOM
Dr. Bella Depaulo Social Scientist, in her research: The Hows and Whys of Lies:
-quote
“Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’. A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a ‘target’.”
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties. Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
Dr. Depaulo is helping us connect some critical dots. Altruism is in fact an excellent way to understand Calvinism’s euphemistic, equivocal, and cosmetic language.
A battered wife may choose to restrain herself from communicating anything that may paint her husband in a bad light – even if she knows what she is communicating is false rather than truth-telling. She is simply protecting the ‘target.’
How much more would a Calvinist refrain from communicating anything that would in any way reflect badly on God or the Gospel. He would feel worse if his language were truth-telling – because it would reveal things about the ‘target’ he doesn’t want people to see.
br.d
How much more would a Calvinist refrain from communicating anything that would in any way reflect badly on God or the Gospel. He would feel worse if his language were truth-telling – because it would reveal things about the ‘target’ he doesn’t want people to see.
roland
How would you answer the following argument? I want to know how you would answer, if you are willing. Suppose an atheist is proposing this argument.
If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil
If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil,
So if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no evil,
But there is evil,
Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.
roland
How would you answer the following argument? I want to know how you would answer, if you are willing. Suppose an atheist is proposing this argument.
If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil
If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil,
if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no evil,
But there is evil,
Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.
br.d
Your reasoning here would be valid IF we were not talking about Calvinism and Calvin’s god.
But it is not valid for the following reasons:
1) In Calvinism – no event can have existence without an infallible decree establishing that events existence
2) Any event that is infallibly decreed cannot be prevented – at pain of falsifying the infallible decree.
Calvin’s god would be a house divided against himself – if he prevents what he decrees come to pass.
3) The only events which are viable candidates for Calvin’s god to prevent are events NOT infallibly decreed
4) Any event NOT infallibly decreed is a NON-EXISTENT event – there is nothing to prevent
CONCLUSION
The concept of Calvin’s god preventing an evil event LOGICALLY entails Calvin’s god preventing an event which he infallibly decreed come to pass – which is LOGICALLY impossible.
I am asking about how YOU would answer the argument but thanks for providing an interpretation of non-Calvinism to Calvinism. I didn’t even mention Calvinism. How would you as a non-Calvinist answer the argument?
That was my answer!
Is that answer TRUE or FALSE?
br.d
That was my answer!
roland
I was looking for an answer that was not according to your understanding of Calvinism.
How would you answer the argument? Can you do that without referencing the Calvinist understanding? Or do you believe you have to use the Calvinist understanding in order to answer?
Perhaps what you were additionally asking is this:
If we were not talking about Calvinism and Calvin’s god – then we would have what Calvin called “MERE” permission.
In such case the THEOS “MERELY” permits humans to be the determiners of their own functionality.
If that functionality is evil – then it follows – that evil event was “MERELY” permitted.
But in such case the THEOS does not have to “MERELY” permit it.
He can choose to prevent it – without falsifying himself – because he did not CAUSE its existence to be infallible.
So divine prevention – outside of Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees is LOGICALLY coherent.
But it is not LOGICALLY coherent with Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees.
br.d writes, “So divine prevention – outside of Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees is LOGICALLY coherent.
But it is not LOGICALLY coherent with Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees.”
Divine prevention is built into God’s decree to create. Had God wanted to prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, that would have been included in God’s decree. God did want to prevent Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph so that was built into God’s decree. God’s infallible decree incorporates all acts of divine prevention.
br.d
So divine prevention – outside of Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees is LOGICALLY coherent.
But it is not LOGICALLY coherent with Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees – because Calvin’s god would be preventing events which he infallibly decreed – which is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
rhutchin
Divine prevention is built into God’s decree to create
br.d
Which (because no event can have existence without Calvin’s god infallibly decreeing it into existence) simply mean’s that Calvin’s god “Prevented” himself from AUTHORING that event.
But of course – we have Calvinism’s compulsive *AS-IF* thinking pattern don’t we
In which the Calvinist statement is designed to treat some events *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did not AUTHOR them – and thus can prevent them.
Thank you rhutchin – for the continued stream of *AS-IF* thinking examples.
I can always count on you! :-]
br.d; “Which (because no event can have existence without Calvin’s god infallibly decreeing it into existence) simply mean’s that Calvin’s god “Prevented” himself from AUTHORING that event.”
As God does nothing except according to the counsel of His will, to say that God “Prevented” himself from AUTHORING that event,” means that God decided against that course of action in forming His decree.
Then, “In which the Calvinist statement is designed to treat some events *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did not AUTHOR them – and thus can prevent them.”
God authored all of history by His decree to create the world. God’s interaction with His creation in bringing about one event or not bringing about (or preventing) another event is defined in exhaustive detail in his decree.
br.d
Which (because no event can have existence without Calvin’s god infallibly decreeing it into existence) simply mean’s that Calvin’s god “Prevented” himself from AUTHORING that event.”
rhutchin
God “Prevented” himself from AUTHORING that event,” means that God decided against that course of action in forming His decree.
br.d
So then the Calvinist can CALL the process of Calvin’s god “Preventing” himself – a process of him “Preventing” an event
An event that wasn’t going to have existence without him AUTHORING it.
A great example of NON-NORMATIVE language!
But of course we know – the Calvinist statement is designed to treat some events *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did not AUTHOR them – and thus can prevent them.”
rhutchin
God authored all of history by His decree to create the world.
br.d
No specific decree = no specific event :-]
rhutchin
God’s “interaction” with His creation in bringing about one event or not bringing about (or preventing) another event is defined in exhaustive detail in his decree.
br.d
Wonderful!
Calvin’s god “Preventing” himself from AUTHORING a human impulse – is Calvin’s god “interacting” with the human!
Can anyone spell ROBOT?? ;-D
br.d writes, “the Calvinist statement is designed to treat some events *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did not AUTHOR them – and thus can prevent them.”
The Calvinist statement says that we do not know what God has decreed until events occur in the course of time. We can speak of the possibility of God doing [X] in the future because of our ignorance of what God has decreed. We can speak of God’s decree containing events that will not happen because God purposed them not to happen (i.e., He prevented them). However, not knowing what God did decree when He created the world, the musings of men are just that – musings.
rhutchin: “God authored all of history by His decree to create the world.”
br.d: “No specific decree = no specific event”
In this case, we learn the specifics of God’s decree as we observe events occur. That future events have not occurred does not mean that there is not a specific decree covering those events but that the specifics of the decree are not known to us.
Then, “Calvin’s god “Preventing” himself from AUTHORING a human impulse – is Calvin’s god “interacting” with the human! ”
God’s decision within His decree not to give a person faith (i.e., God authoring a human impulse) is an example of the manner in which God interacts with His creation. It doesn’t identify a person as a robot no more than a decision to bestow gifts on one person and not another makes either of them robots.
br.d
the Calvinist statement is designed to treat some events *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did not AUTHOR them – and thus can prevent them.”
rhuthcin
We can speak of the possibility of God doing [X] in the future because of our ignorance of what God has decreed.
br.d
Cmon rhutchin – lets TELL THE TRUTH!
You speak of Calvin’s god doing [X] when that given [X] is palatable to you.
You speak *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did NOT do [X] – when that given [X] is NOT palatable to you
rhutchin
We can speak of God’s decree containing events that will not happen because God purposed them not to happen (i.e., He prevented them).
br.d
Which – I got you to acknowledge – is nothing more than Calvin’s god “Preventing” himself. :-]
rhutchin
God authored all of history by His decree to create the world.”
br.d
No specific decree = no specific event
rhutchin
In this case, we learn the specifics of God’s decree as we observe events occur.
br.d
Correct!
See you can tell the TRUTH when you want to! :-]
You have what is called “A posteriori” knowledge
If impulse [X] came to pass – then Calvin’s god AUTHORED impulse [X] – and that impulse came to pass infallibly and irresistibly.
Calvin’s god “Preventing” himself from AUTHORING a human impulse – is Calvin’s god “interacting” with the human! ”
Can anyone spell ROBOT! :-]
rhutchin
God’s decision within His decree not to give a person faith (i.e., God authoring a human impulse) is an example of the manner in which God interacts with His creation.
br.d
How you do love repeating yourself – trying to make it look like your last statement says more than your last.
So Calvin’s god “Preventing” himself from AUTHORING a human impulse – is Calvin’s god “interacting” with the human! ”
Can anyone spell ROBOT! :-]
rhutchin
It doesn’t identify a person as a robot no more than a decision to bestow gifts on one person and not another makes either of them robots.
br.d
Your error here is the inability to distinguish ONTOLOGICAL from FUNCTIONAL
In Calvinism – humans are not robots ONTOLOGICALLY as that would be silly
Humans are not made out of plastic and metal.
Calvin’s god AUTHORING an entities’ impulses – is Calvin’s god’s way of “Interacting” with that entity.
Any RATIONAL thinker can connect those dots! :-]
br.d
Your reasoning here would be valid IF we were not talking about Calvinism and Calvin’s god.
roland
Yes, answer as if we are not talking about Calvinism. Thanks
br.d writes, “The concept of Calvin’s god preventing an evil event LOGICALLY entails Calvin’s god preventing an event which he infallibly decreed come to pass – which is LOGICALLY impossible.”
God prevents evil through His decree and any evil not prevented in that decree is infallibly decreed to come to pass.
br.d
The concept of Calvin’s god preventing an evil event LOGICALLY entails Calvin’s god preventing an event which he infallibly decreed come to pass – which is LOGICALLY impossible.”
rhutchin
God prevents evil through His decree
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god “Prevents” himself from decreeing event [X] – and in so doing is said to have “Prevented” event [X]
Of course Calvin’s god knew that event [X] was a NON-EXISTENT event – because he knew he was going to “Prevent” himself from decreeing it.
HERE IS WISDOM
Notice how Calvinist language tends to apply NON-NORMATIVE meanings to terms
In this case the term “Prevent”.
So we have terms – designed to MASQUERADE as having their NORMATIVE meaning – when they don’t
Thus we have a CLOAKED language – and we have SEMANTIC MASKS :-]
br.d
HERE IS WISDOM
Notice how Calvinist language tends to apply NON-NORMATIVE meanings to terms
In this case the term “Prevent”.
So we have terms – designed to MASQUERADE as having their NORMATIVE meaning – when they don’t
Thus we have a CLOAKED language – and we have SEMANTIC MASKS :-]
roland
I don’t understand how you can believe what you are writing. This is where I cannot follow you because you seem to have some sort of individualistic understanding of how Calvinists use language. You apply meanings to words that Calvinists don’t. It’s very strange.
roland
I don’t understand how you can believe what you are writing. This is where I cannot follow you because you seem to have some sort of individualistic understanding of how Calvinists use language. You apply meanings to words that Calvinists don’t. It’s very strange.
br.d
Lets take the term “permission” as used in Calvinism
Read this statement by John Calvin very carefully
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things…….The [divine] will which he represents as INTERPOSING is, if I may so express it, ACTIVE (actualis), and but for this could not be regarded as a CAUSE (Institutes)
So it becomes obvious here that Calvin is relying a meaning which Augustine has attaches to the word PERMIT.
Ok – now lets look at the historical definition of the term PERMIT
The term “permit,” is derived from the Latin permettere
It is defined as:
To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
That is the NORMATIVE meaning of the term PERMIT.
Now:
Calvin addresses his detractors who argue that God PERMITS evil events and does not CAUSE them.
His detractors want to apply the NORMATIVE meaning of the word PERMISSION to God.
Calvin calls this an INVENTION and an EVASION
John Calvin
-quote
Hence a DISTINCTION has been INVENTED between DOING and PERMITTING.
Because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases……(institutes).
John Calvin
-quote
Hence, recourse is had to the EVASION that this is done only by the PERMISSION, and not also by the will of God.(Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely PERMITS them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing
but the AUTHOR of them. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (pg 176)
So for Calvin – the NORMATIVE meaning of the word PERMIT is rejected when it has to do with god.
Thus we have the following:
1) That which is divinely CAUSED is PERMITTED
2) That which is NOT divinely CAUSED is NOT PERMITTED.
So in Calvinism when it comes to divine PERMISSION – the meaning which Augustine and Calvin ATTACH to it – is CAUSE.
rhutchin’s appeal to divine intervention and prevention works the same way.
Calvin’s god “Preventing” events (which can only have existence were he to infallibly decree them) is LOGICALLY impossible.
So the “Prevention” rhutchin is appealing to equates to Calvin’s god “Preventing” himself from decreeing an event.
For John Calvin – god would be CAUSING the event to NOT come to pass.
Which really is a NON-NORMATIVE use of language
But notice Calvinist statements are designed to MASQUERADE *AS-IF* Calvin’s god does not decree evil events to happen in the first place.
Therefore we have a CLOAKED language – and we have SEMANTIC MASKS.
br.d: “CALVINIST INTERPRETATION – Calvin’s god “Prevents” himself from decreeing event [X] – and in so doing is said to have “Prevented” event [X]”
Ephesians 1 tells us, “God works all things after the counsel of his will;” God’s decree is framed according to the counsel of His will.” It is according to that counsel that God ““Prevents” himself from decreeing event [X]” (as you say) and in so doing is said not to have decreed event [X].
rhutchin
It is according to that counsel that God ““Prevents” himself from decreeing event [X]” (as you say) and in so doing is said not to have decreed event [X].
br.d
THERE YOU HAVE IT ROLAND!!
There is divine prevention in Calvinism!
Now remember we were talking about how terms in Calvinism do not have their NORMATIVE meaning?
Ask yourself – if that is the NORMATIVE use of the term “prevent”
br.d
CONCLUSION
The concept of Calvin’s god preventing an evil event LOGICALLY entails Calvin’s god preventing an event which he infallibly decreed come to pass – which is LOGICALLY impossible.
roland
Your argument makes no sense at all. In order for your conclusion to be true there must some inconsistency within God. There is none. God’s decrees, His desires, His will, His purposes, plans, these are all in perfect harmony. The error in your argument begins right here: Calvin’s god would be a house divided against himself – if he prevents what he decrees come to pass.
It is impossible for God to prevent what He decreed to come to pass. True there is nothing to prevent God’s decrees! There are plenty of Scriptures that teach us this.
Job 42:2
“I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
This is Job’s dialogue with God and Job confessing that biblical truth “that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.” God’s decrees are not in opposition to each other, that’s a false premise.
roland
Your argument makes no sense at all.
br.d
In order to prove that – you must show which statement is LOGICALLY FALSE
Go back and review the statements again and let me know which one you think is LOGICALLY FALSE
And we can take it from there.
Remember – we are specifically talking about Calvin’s god.
So our examination will be of Calvin’s god.
br.d
In order to prove that – you must show which statement is LOGICALLY FALSE
roland
I didn’t’ say LOGICALLY FALSE. I said one your premises is false, the statement that God is a house divided and He decrees events against other events that He has decreed.
br.d
Remember – we are specifically talking about Calvin’s god.
So our examination will be of Calvin’s god.
roland
There’s only one God, the God of the Bible. There’ no such thing as “Calvin’s god.”
roland
I didn’t’ say LOGICALLY FALSE. I said one your premises is false, the statement that God is a house divided and He decrees events against other events that He has decreed.
br.d
Then you didn’t read the statement
It does not say anything about decreeing one event against another.
What is said was IF Calvin’s god prevents an event that he infallibly decrees come to pass THEN he would be a house divided against himself – which is LOGICALLY impossible.
That statement is either TRUE or FALSE
What say you?
Here is a syllogism for you – on the same subject of evil events
1) If Calvin’s god wanted to – he could decree NO human impulses as evil impulses
2) If Calvin’s god decreed NO human impulses as evil impulses – then NO human impulses would be evil impulses
3) The vast majority of human impulses are evil impulses
CONCLUSION
Calvin’s god wants the vast majority of human impulses to be evil impulses
Here is a syllogism for you – on the subject of FALSE perceptions
1) If Calvin’s god wanted to – he could decree NO human perceptions as FALSE perceptions
2) If Calvin’s god decreed NO human perceptions as FALSE perceptions – then NO human perceptions would be FALSE perceptions
3) The vast majority of human perceptions are FALSE perceptions
CONCLUSION
Calvin’s god wants the vast majority of human perceptions to be FALSE perceptions
This would lead us to a further syllogism
1) In Calvinism – whatsoever comes to pass – concerning FALSE perceptions – is infallibly decreed
2) In the event the human mind discerns a FALSE perception – that perception would no longer be a FALSE perception
3) In Calvinism – you brain is NOT permitted any EPISTEMIC function which would falsify an infallible decree
CONCLUSION:
Any EPISTEMIC ability to discern an infallibly decreed FALSE perception is NOT PERMITTED because it would falsify an infallible decree.
Therefore in Calvinism – the Calvinist mind is NOT PERMITTED to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.
All determinations of TRUE from FALSE are solely and exclusively determined by Calvin’s god alone.
Therefore on Calvinism – the Calvinist mind is NOT PERMITTED the EPISTEMIC function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
br.d writes, ‘Therefore in Calvinism – the Calvinist mind is NOT PERMITTED to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.”
With faith, anyone can discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.
Then, “All determinations of TRUE from FALSE are solely and exclusively determined by Calvin’s god alone.”
Correct. Of course, Calvin’s god is God.
br.d
Therefore in Calvinism – the Calvinist mind is NOT PERMITTED to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.”
rhutchin
With faith, anyone can discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.
br.d
B.T is correct – You can’t address LOGICAL statements – so you simply MASSAGE language as your response.
1) When was the last time your brain was PERMITTED to falsify an infallible decree?
TRUE Calvinist Answer: Never
2) Are the FALSE perceptions which exist within your brain part of whatsoever Calvin’s god infallibly decreed?
TRUE Calvinist Answer: YES
CONCLUSION:
All FALSE perceptions which exist in your brain – are there by infallible decree – which your brain is NOT permitted to falsify.
All determinations of TRUE from FALSE are solely and exclusively determined by Calvin’s god alone.”
rhutchin
Correct. Of course, Calvin’s god is God.
br.d
Well – if you can connect that dot – then you should be able to understand – that “solely and exclusively” does not leave anything left over for your brain to determine
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits your brain to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter :-]
br.d writes, “Well – if you can connect that dot – then you should be able to understand – that “solely and exclusively” does not leave anything left over for your brain to determine ”
That is why we have the Scriptures. Those who receive faith are able to discern truth from the Scriptures. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth…”
br.d
Well – if you can connect that dot – then you should be able to understand – that “solely and exclusively” does not leave anything left over for your brain to determine ”
rhutchin
That is why we have the Scriptures.
br.d
Well that at least gives you what that Jehovah’s witness and Mormons have!
But of course – only Calvin’s god determines the impulses that will come to pass within your brain
You don’t perhaps think you can smuggle in a little of Calvin’s god “MERELY” permitting your brain to determine TRUE from FALSE do you?? Naughty Naughty rhutchin! :-]
rhutchin
Those who receive faith are able to discern truth from the Scriptures. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth…”
br.d
Well – in Calvinism – no decree = NO IMPULSE
So IXNAY on a faith impulse! :-]
And secondly – you have no way of knowing whether or not the IMPULSE Calvin’s god makes come to pass within your brain isn’t a FALSE faith impulse.
As Calvin says:
-quote
But the Lord……. INSTILLS INTO THEIR MINDS such a SENSE of his goodness as can be felt WITHOUT THE SPIRIT of adoption. (Institutes pg 342)
-quote
“He ILLUMINES them only for a time to partake of it; then……STRIKES them with even greater blindness (Institutes)
-quote
We must thus consider both God’s SECRET ELECTION and his INNER call. For HE ALONE KNOWS who are his” .
But – if the Calvinist takes the mark of the beast – then that’s a good indicator of which faith Calvin’s god gave him.
And whether or not the perceptions Calvin’s god gave him were FALSE perceptions.
BTW:
You never did answer the question – what percentage of the perceptions Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly exist in your brain are FALSE perceptions?
Oh that’s right – I forgot – Calvin’st god doesn’t permit that EPISTEMIC function! ;-]
rhutchin: “That is why we have the Scriptures.”
br.d: “Well that at least gives you what that Jehovah’s witness and Mormons have!”
That is why I said, “Those who receive faith are able to discern truth from the Scriptures. Jesus said, ‘You shall know the truth…’” Jehovah’s witness and Mormons but they lack faith, so they are not able to discern the truth of the Scriptures from the falseness of their theologies.
Then, “But of course – only Calvin’s god determines the impulses that will come to pass within your brain”
Yes, it is God who gives faith to a person thereby initiating all those impulses that arise from faith.
Then, “You don’t perhaps think you can smuggle in a little of Calvin’s god “MERELY” permitting your brain to determine TRUE from FALSE do you?? ”
Only where ““MERELY” permitting your brain to determine TRUE from FALSE” is made possible by an active decree of God.
Then, “Well – in Calvinism – no decree = NO IMPULSE
So IXNAY on a faith impulse! ”
Conversely, a decree of faith gives us impulses derived from that faith.
Then, “And secondly – you have no way of knowing whether or not the IMPULSE Calvin’s god makes come to pass within your brain isn’t a FALSE faith impulse.”
Faith is the basis for a person to believe the Scriptures. It is believing the Scriptures that tells us that faith is a true faith and that it generates impulses that are true.
Then, “But – if the Calvinist takes the mark of the beast – then that’s a good indicator of which faith Calvin’s god gave him.”
Or any person for that matter. That is why Jesus said, “By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.”
Then, “You never did answer the question – what percentage of the perceptions Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly exist in your brain are FALSE perceptions?”
Without faith, 100 percent of a person’s perceptions are false. With faith comes the renewing of the mind and false perceptions are replaced by the truth of the Scriptures.
rhutchin
That is why we have the Scriptures.”
br.d
Well that at least gives you what the Jehovah’s witness and Mormons have!” :-]
rhutchin
That is why I said, “Those who receive faith are able to discern truth from the Scriptures.
br.d
Let’s see you do that without Calvin’s god AUTHORING an impulse in your brain! :-]
You don’t perhaps think you can smuggle in a little of Calvin’s god “MERELY” permitting your brain to determine TRUE from FALSE do you?? ”
rhutchin
Only where ““MERELY” permitting your brain to determine TRUE from FALSE” is made possible by an active decree of God.
br.d
AH! As I knew all along!!
You have to deny the fact that Calvinist needs to have something TRUE when he needs it TRUE and FALSE when he needs it FALSE
Thus the Calvinist is perpetually denying his own doctrine – in order to live with it! :-]
rhutchin
Conversely, a decree of faith gives us impulses derived from that faith.
br.d
FALSE
The impulse is derived from Calvin’s god – its simply called a “faith” impulse
But Calvin’s god doesn’t PERMIT you to know if it is a TRUE faith impulse – or a FALSE faith impulse
rhutchin
Faith is the basis for a person to believe the Scriptures.
br.d
Especially the FALSE faith impulse! 😀
But – if the Calvinist takes the mark of the beast – then that’s a good indicator of which faith Calvin’s god gave him.
rhutchin
Or any person for that matter…..
br.d
Or “MANY” persons for that matter – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure :-]
BTW:
You never did answer the question – what percentage of the perceptions Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly exist in your brain are FALSE perceptions?”
rhutchin
Without faith, 100 percent of a person’s perceptions are false.
br.d
rhutchin – you make such silly statements!
Even a paranoid schizophrenic mind doesn’t have 100% FALSE perceptions :-]
rhutchin
With faith comes the renewing of the mind and false perceptions are replaced by the truth of the Scriptures.
br.d
Especially the FALSE faith gift Calvin’s god gives to the “MANY” ;-]
But when Calvin’s god infallibly decrees that you take the mark of the beast – he’ll want to make sure you have enough TRUE perceptions to enjoy the ride! So the perceptions he gives you will obviously never be 100% FALSE
For his good pleasure of course :-]
br.d: “Let’s see you do that without Calvin’s god AUTHORING an impulse in your brain! ”
Can’t be done until God gives a person faith (i.e., authors faith impulses in your brain).
br.d
Let’s see you do that without Calvin’s god AUTHORING an impulse in your brain! :-]
rhutchin
Can’t be done until God gives a person faith (i.e., authors faith impulses in your brain)
br.d
More precisely – can’t EXIST without Calvin’s god AUTHORING the impulse in your brain.
No decree = no impulse
Therefore IXNAY on the faith impulse!
And of course – Calvin’s god doesn’t permit you to discern the difference between a TRUE faith impulse and a FALSE one. :-]
br.d writes, “3) The vast majority of human impulses are evil impulses”
It should be: 3) Without faith, all human impulses (i.e., thoughts and desires) are evil impulses (i.e., thoughts and desires).
br.d
The vast majority of human impulses are evil impulses”
rhutchin
It should be: 3) Without faith, all human impulses (i.e., thoughts and desires) are evil impulses (i.e., thoughts and desires).
br.d
You mean without faith impulses – human impulses are……etc
And Roland claims – Calvinists don’t speak a CLOAKED language and hide things behind SEMANTIC MASKS!
What a hoot! :-]
HOW CERTAIN CONCEPTS IN CALVINISM TAKE THE FORM OF VIRTUAL REALITY
In Calvinism – you have a world that is 100% meticulously pre-determined.
You would have the same exact world if the THEOS were a computer because a computer represents a 100% pre-determined world.
Now it is LOGICALLY impossible for a computer to generate IN-deterministic events.
Take for example VIRTUAL REALITY programs.
When computer animated games first came out on the market – they were ultra simple.
People quickly got bored of them because they were so repetitive that they became boring.
Programmers – in order to make VIRTUAL REALITY games more satisfactory to the human mind – had to add an ever increasing number of variables into the program.
But these variables are all themselves 100% pre-determined – which means it is LOGICALLY impossible for them to be IN-deterministic.
Even though that is the case, these variables are sufficient to TRICK the human mind into perceiving VIRTUAL REALITY as REAL
In other words the program APPEARS IN-deterministic enough for the human mind to accept it as what the human mind perceives as REALITY.
But the TRUTH is – the computer game is nothing more than a SIMULATION – because everything is 100% pre-determined.
The same thing holds TRUE in Calvinism – everything is 100% pre-determined.
Therefore in Calvinism -the only type of divine intervention/prevention that the Calvinist can have is a 100% pre-determined
Which is exactly what the computer does.
In other words – divine intervention/prevention in Calvinism exists only as SIMULATION.
As rhutchin often will say it – “he BUILDS intervention and prevention into his decree”
Which is just another way of saying he BUILDS intervention and prevention into his program
And since it LOGICALLY follows – any TRUE intervention/prevention would falsifying an infallibly decreed event – then what the Calvinist is left with – is a 100% pre-determined SIMULATION of divine intervention/prevention.
Roland writes, “First, God doesn’t MAKE people sin.”
Because God gives life to people but withholds faith from them until they hear the gospel, they can only sin – they are totally depraved. So, God does make people sin, not directly, but through lack of faith that characterizes their wants and desires. Nonetheless, people want to sin and they sin willfully and voluntarily to fulfill their sinful desires. People are accountable for their sinful actions because the way they treat others is not the way they want others to treat them – even people without faith know that they treat people in ways that they do not want to be treated.
rhutchin
Roland writes, “First, God doesn’t MAKE people sin.”
Because God gives life to people but withholds faith from them…….
br.d
Calvinist lesson #666
In this class we’ll teach you how to manufacture whole paragraphs about Calvinism – while strategically HIDING the “horrible” decrees behind a library of non-malevolent SEMANTIC MASKS.
Don’t miss this class!
Its foundational to the art of Calvinist language. :-]
br.d: “In this class we’ll teach you how to manufacture whole paragraphs about Calvinism – while strategically HIDING the “horrible” decrees behind a library of non-malevolent SEMANTIC MASKS.”
LOL!!! No decrees hidden here. Because of Adam’s sin, his descendants are born with a corrupted nature and cannot escape that nature except through faith and faith is only conveyed through the word of God. This was by God’s decree and readily acknowledged by Calvinists. That decree was enshrined in TULIP.
What exactly would br.d teach in his class?
br.d
In this class we’ll teach you how to manufacture whole paragraphs about Calvinism – while strategically HIDING the “horrible” decrees behind a library of non-malevolent SEMANTIC MASKS.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! No decrees hidden here. ….
br.d
Oh really?
Go back and look at your list! :-]
rhutchin: “LOL!!! No decrees hidden here. ….”
br.d: “Oh really? Go back and look at your list!”
Yep. All out in the open; nothing hidden.
rhutchin: “LOL!!! No decrees hidden here. ….”
br.d
Oh really? Go back and look at your list!” :-]
rhutchin
Yep. All out in the open; nothing hidden.
br.d
All except the infallible decree!
What a hoot!
Calvinism must have been given to mankind as a form of entertainment! :-]
br.d writes, “All except the infallible decree!”
Here are the infallible decrees I listed:
– Faith is required for salvation
– No one is born with faith
– Without faith a person is totally depraved
– God chooses whom to save before the person is born and has done evil or good
– God gives those He has chosen to Christ
– Those God gives to Christ will believe in Christ
– God draws to Christ those He has given to Christ
– God sent Christ to the cross to reconcile to Himself those that God had chosen to give to Christ
– God irresistibly gives faith to those He has chosen to give to Christ
– God begins the work of salvation in His elect
– God preserves His elect and they will not be lost
What is missing that needs to be added?
Which one has the infallible decree specifically stated? :-]
And why didn’t you state the infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly – since that represents the vast majority of what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees?
Let me guess! :-]
br.d writes, ‘And why didn’t you state the infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly – since that represents the vast majority of what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees?”
LOL!!! I broke it up into several decrees that cover that in detail–
– No one is born with faith (i.e., no good impulse can come to pass in any person initially)
– Without faith a person is totally depraved (i.e., only sinful evil impulses can come to pass in any person initially)
– Those God gives to Christ will believe in Christ (i.e., the impulse to salvation is guaranteed)
– God draws to Christ those He has given to Christ (i.e., salvation impulses originates with God)
– God begins the work of salvation in His elect (i.e., salvation impulses originate with God)
– God preserves His elect and they will not be lost (i.e., salvation impulses are guaranteed by God to prevail)
So, even what you state is not hidden. So, what is it that you think the Calvinists are really hiding?? Is it only you who thinks the Calvinists are really trying to hide their theology when their theology is taken straight from the Scriptures?
br.d
And why didn’t you state the infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly – since that represents the vast majority of what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees?”
rhutchin
LOL!!! I broke it up into several decrees that cover that in detail–
br.d
Wonderful! This will be an example of what intellectual honesty looks like in Calvinism! :-]
rhutchin
– No one is born with faith (i.e., no good impulse can come to pass in any person initially)
br.d
Which says nothing about Calvin’s god’s infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly
rhutchin
– Without faith a person is totally depraved (i.e., only sinful evil impulses can come to pass in any person initially)
br.d
Which says nothing about Calvin’s god’s infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly
rhutchin
– Those God gives to Christ will believe in Christ (i.e., the impulse to salvation is guaranteed)
br.d
Which says nothing about Calvin’s god’s infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly
rhutchin
– God draws to Christ those He has given to Christ (i.e., salvation impulses originates with God)
br.d
Which says nothing about Calvin’s god’s infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly
rhuthcin
– God begins the work of salvation in His elect (i.e., salvation impulses originate with God)
br.d
Which says nothing about Calvin’s god’s infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly
rhutchin
– God preserves His elect and they will not be lost (i.e., salvation impulses are guaranteed by God to prevail)
br.d
Which says nothing about Calvin’s god’s infallible decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that comes to pass within the human brain making all sins and evils occur irresistibly
rhutchin
So, even what you state is not hidden.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin!
Once again – you’ve provided another example!
Lets let SOT101 Readers discern for themselves – your example of what Calvinism’s intellectual honesty looks like! :-]
br.d: “Which in Calvinism simply means all sins and evils which he will make people infallibly and irresistibly do – are FIRST CONCEIVED in his mind.”
Which makes God pretty smart – no person can ever do anything not anticipated by God.
br.d
Which in Calvinism simply means all sins and evils which he will make people infallibly and irresistibly do – are FIRST CONCEIVED in his mind.”
rhutchin
Which makes God pretty smart – no person can ever do anything not anticipated by God.
br.d
Oh that is hilarious!
Thank you rhutchin for providing another wonderful example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
In this case *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s anticipation is NOT of what he determines in every part!
And Roland says Calvinists don’t use white-wash and COSMETIC MASKS!!
What a hoot! ;-]
br.d writes, “In this case *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s anticipation is NOT of what he determines in every part!”
That which God anticipates is part of His decree. God anticipates, and decrees, all things by means of His infinite understanding working through the counsel of His will. This makes your statement true – “Which in Calvinism simply means all sins and evils which he will make people infallibly and irresistibly do – are FIRST CONCEIVED [or anticipated] in his mind.”
When the Calvinist says, “…he will make…” he means that God works through secondary causes. For example, a person is born without faith so he is totally depraved and unable to do other than sin and sin he will “infallibly and irresistibly” do.
br.d
In this case *AS-IF* Calvin’s god’s anticipation is NOT of what he determines in every part!”
rhutchin
That which God anticipates is part of His decree.
br.d
*AS-IF* he doesn’t anticipate [X] LOGICALLY PRIOR to his decree of [X] ;-]
rhutchin
When the Calvinist says, “…he will make…” he means that God works through secondary causes.
br.d
And in Determinism (aka Calvinism) every secondary event is CAUSED by an antecedent event
And the antecedent event is out of the control of the secondary event.
In Calvinism – the DETERMINATIVE antecedent event is always Calvin’s god and his infallible decree.
Additionally in Calvinism – every secondary event occurs INFALLIBLY.
And nature does not have the power of INFALLIBILITY – it cannot produce an INFALLIBLE event.
It cannot make itself move INFALLIBLY.
Calvin’s god is the only one who can do that.
So every secondary event – as Calvin’s god’s involvement in it
He must endow it with INFALLIBLY.
Which requires Calvin’s god’s to function as a ACTIVE PARTICIPANT in all events which comes to pass.
In addition to that we have these declarations:
Louis Berkhof
-quote
“God is IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance the impulse to action preceeds from god” (Systematic Theology)
John Calvin
-quote
Since God’s will is said to be the CAUSE of all things, I have made this providence the DETERMINATIVE principle for all human plans and works, not only in order to display its FORCE in the elect…..but also to COMPEL the reprobate to obedience. – (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they are merely INSTRUMENTS, into which god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN of each of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of God (The Providence of God pg 22)
Roland says: “Also, ordained in Calvinism does not have the same meaning as “preplanned/caused/controlled.”
In practice, it does. Or maybe you’re saying that Calvinism’s god does not preplan, cause, control all things?
And yes, Psalm 33:11 says that the plans of the Lord stand firm forever. But Psalm 33:10 says “The Lord foils the plans of the nations…” If Calvinism is true that God controls everything in our hearts/wills/minds, then it would mean that God Himself puts the plans of the nations into the people’s heads, which means that they are really HIS plans, which means that He is foiling HIS OWN PLANS. That is so nonsensical. And self-defeating. And then what are we to make of “the plans of the Lord stand firm forever”? How can God’s plans stand firm forever if He foils His own plans!?! If Calvinism is true, then we’re supposed to believe that God puts plans that He Himself made up into people’s heads … and then He foils them because of a different plan He had … and yet “His plans will stand forever”!?! Which plans are those? The plans He put into their heads? His plans to foil them? His new plan about what He’ll do with the foiled plans? It’s so stupid! The only right and logical way to understand this is that man makes up his own mind but that God can thwart what man decides – NOT that God controls what’s in man’s mind/will/heart. This is the only way to make sense of how God can foil man’s plans but that His plans stand forever.
Maybe Calvinists are okay with singling out verses that say what they want, but I’d rather take Scripture as a whole!
And just because God plans things doesn’t mean everything was planned. Just because all monkeys are animals doesn’t mean all animals are monkeys. (Or are they, Roland?)
Same with Psalm 115:3 and 135:6, about God doing what He pleases. Just because He does things He pleases doesn’t mean that everything that happens is because He was pleased to cause it. Same with Isaiah 43:13, about no one being able to reverse God’s actions. Just because no one can reverse an action He has done doesn’t mean He causes everything that happens. And just because God sends/uses Assyria to discipline Israel doesn’t mean He caused Assyria to be wicked and to choose to do wicked things.
It just means He chose to work their wicked choices into His plans.
Calvinists add things to Scripture that aren’t there.
And I love how Calvinists build their theology on the verses Roland listed, but they ignore verses like these:
Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings without my consent’ they choose princes without my approval.”
Isaiah 30:1: “Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the Lord, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine.”
Jeremiah 19:4-5, about the child sacrifice being done, God says it was “something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”
1 Kings 20:42: “This is what the Lord says, ‘You have set free a man I had determined should die.'”
Acts 14:16: “In the past, [God] let all nations go their own way.”
Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem … how often I have longed to gather your children together … but you were not willing.”
Isaiah 65:12: “You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.” (If God causes everything to happen because it pleases Him then how can He also cause something that displeases Him?)
And all those verses (except Acts) are things God Himself says, not just something written about God in the Psalms. And yet Calvinists ignore these verses in favor of the Psalms.
If Calvinists want to pick and choose a few “Calvinist-sounding” verses to build their theology on and if they want to add things the verses don’t say, then that’s their choice. But I’d rather take Scripture as a whole and stick to what it says.
Heather writes, “Or maybe you’re saying that Calvinism’s god does not preplan, cause, control all things?…If Calvinism is true that God controls everything in our hearts/wills/minds, then it would mean that God Himself puts the plans of the nations into the people’s heads, which means that they are really HIS plans, which means that He is foiling HIS OWN PLANS.”
That God necessarily ordains all things is based on His omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God must approve all that happens – thus decree all things – before anything can happen. God is in control of all things, but does not have to directly coerce that which He wills – He can use secondary means. Because of omnipotence, everything that happens is according to His will since He has the power to decree all things.
rhutchin
That God necessarily ordains all things…….since He has the power to decree all things.
br.d
There you have it!
In Calvinism “ordain” logically equates to “decree”
And everyone knows that a secondary event must be CAUSED by a primary event
Which in Calvinism’s case is always an infallible decree
Which CAUSES that secondary event come to pass infallibly – and thus irresistibly
br.d writes, “And everyone knows that a secondary event must be CAUSED by a primary event
Which in Calvinism’s case is always an infallible decree
Which CAUSES that secondary event come to pass infallibly – and thus irresistibly”
God’s infallible decree does not cause anything any more than God’s knowledge of future events causes those events. God’s omnipotent power and His exercise of that omnipotent power to work all things according to the counsel of His will is the primary (first) cause of the events contained in His decree.
rhutchin
God’s infallible decree does not cause anything
br.d
There you go denying your belief system again!
In Exhaustive Determinism – EVERY event is caused by an antecedent event.
Perhaps you want to argue that the infallible decree is not an event! :-]
Good luck with that!
br.d writes, “There you go denying your belief system again! In Exhaustive Determinism – EVERY event is caused by an antecedent event.”
The antecedent event in this case that serves as the cause of all that follows is God’s creation of the world.
br.d
There you go denying your belief system again! In Exhaustive Determinism – EVERY event is caused by an antecedent event.”
rhutchin
The antecedent event in this case that serves as the cause of all that follows is God’s creation of the world.
br.d
This is deceptive language!
There is no such thing as “MERE” permission in Calvinism.
Calvin’st do does not create the world – and then “MERELY” PERMIT it to move as it will
John Calvin
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of ALL things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, AS THOUGH nothing were determined about ANY PART (in Concerning the eternal predestination)
Here Calvin expressly asserts that EVERY PART of ALL events are specifically determined
No specific decree for a given impulse = no impulse
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees ALL of our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree)
Even if you try to argue that 100% of ALL is meticulousness determined – it still resolves down to every impulse and the movement of every atomic particle – as specifically determined.
But we know how desperately you need to paint the picture of “MERE” permission
So your use of misleading language is expected. :-]
br.d: “There you go denying your belief system again! In Exhaustive Determinism – EVERY event is caused by an antecedent event.”
rhutchin: “The antecedent event in this case that serves as the cause of all that follows is God’s creation of the world.”
br.d: “There is no such thing as “MERE” permission in Calvinism.
Calvin’st do does not create the world – and then “MERELY” PERMIT it to move as it will”
No one said He did.
br.d
There is no such thing as “MERE” permission in Calvinism.
Calvin’st do does not create the world – and then “MERELY” PERMIT it to move as it will”
rhutchin
No one said He did.
be.d
We all understand how Calvinist language works! :-]
Jeremiah 19:4-5, about the child sacrifice being done,
God says it was “something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind that they SHOULD do such a thing.”
rhutchin
We see in Deuteronomy, that the practice of child sacrifice did enter God’s mind
br.d
Of course in Calvinism – Calvin’s god -quote “Foresees ONLY as a consequence of his decree”
So in Calvinism – Calvin’s god must certainly decreed whatsoever impulses would come to pass within the brains of the parents.
Impulses which are infallible and thus irresistible – specific to throwing their babies into the fire
So in Calvinism – it LOGICALLY follows – it most certainly did enter into Calvin’s god’s mind that they SHOULD do such a thing.
And he also knew that he did NOT PERMIT them to do otherwise.
Jeremiah 19:4-5, about the child sacrifice being done, God says it was “something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”
This verse is to be understood in context with Deuteronomy 18:10 – “There shall not be found with you anyone who makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices sorcery, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer…” We see in Deuteronomy, that the practice of child sacrifice did enter God’s mind and he specifically prohibited Israel from doing such. For this reason, Jeremiah can be read, “something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind [to command or mention].”
Roland
Also, ordained in Calvinism does not have the same meaning as “preplanned/caused/controlled.”
br.d
How typical!!
rhurchin has acknowledged multiple times that “ordains” equates to “infallibly decrees”
So this is simply another attempt at escaping the doctrine.
Calvinists have a Love-Hate relationship with Exhaustive Determinism (aka doctrine of decreed)
Heather!
Fantastic! Yes young Calvinists get all excited about half verses that say “God plans”. They take these scattered fragments (notice the verses right next to theirs will often refute their point—as you showed!) and make “doctrinal statements”.
God plans….therefore, all things are planned by God.
God brings punishment on people (Assyria on Israel in Isaiah) ….therefore, all evil from all time is God-forced.
God says what He will do….. therefore, all things that happen are done by God.
Nah…. that’s no way to read Scripture! Let’s read the whole counsel of God….not just extracted verses here and there.
FOH,
Nah…. that’s no way to read Scripture! Let’s read the whole counsel of God….not just extracted verses here and there.
roland
Wait a minute FOH. You’re willing to argue in another post to Heather about Calvinists and middle knowledge. Your argument is only from a few verses, maybe 40-50, where you mention this:
FOH
This third option makes sense of the hundreds of places in Scripture where God says “should have” “would have” “if you had only” “I expected this but you did this”.
roland
You are violating your own standard that you have set and using only a particular set of verses to make your argument as you have accused me of doing in the past. I agree, let’s read the whole counsel of Scripture, so please inlclude the verses that teach us that God is absolutely sovereign and His kingdom extends to all the earth and no man can stay his hand. What about those verses?
Let me make a comment (again!) about sovereignty.
The Queen of England is sovereign over the UK. What does that mean?
Does she control everything? Nah. Not even close. In fact no king or queen in history ever has completely controlled their people (certainly not their heart, and actions, and thoughts!).
I want to take ALL of Scripture, including the many hundreds of passages that say “if you have done this I would have done this…” or ” I expected you to….” and “I was going to do this, but you people did this so I changed my plan.”
Someone “sovereign” in the way that Calvinists insist would not make these statements. Let alone HUNDREDS of times in HUNDREDS of semantic formulas!
Someone “sovereign” in the way that Calvinists insist (having planned it all out immutably before time) would never talk like this—- and if He did, it would come across as disingenuous…even deceptive.
Calvinist will use verses saying “His kingdom extends to all the earth” and “no man can stay his hand…”
What?
These verses say that He can do whatever He wants with His creation, but they DO NOT say that whatever happens is what He wants or from His hand.
It is just bad exegesis to make that claim.
There is a big difference between “God does what He wants” (what we would all ascribe to) and “all that happens is what God wants, even rape and torture” (what Calvinists ascribe to).
Thanks for the reply, FOH.
FOH wrote:
Let me make a comment (again!) about sovereignty.
roland
I know! We have a huge disagreement regarding God’s sovereignty. Calvinists and non-calvinists can both agree that God is sovereign, however, Calvinists believe God is more active in exercising His sovereignty as opposed to non-calvinists views such as “God in his own sovereignty, gave man freewill or limited himself.” 🙂
Roland,
Some time it would be interesting to chat with you about your idea of human freedom in Calvinism.
Is suspect you embrace what is called “Compatibilist” freedom.
Roland writes, “…non-calvinists views such as “God in his own sovereignty, gave man freewill or limited himself.”
Even the granting of “free will” to people is a sovereign act of God with God knowing that people will use that “free will” to pursue their selfish desires. To say that God “limits Himself” means only that God made a sovereign decree not to interfere in the evil acts of people, such as rape and torture, but only to stand by watching the evil that people perpetrate on each other. God does this to prove that no one is worthy of heaven and God will be just to exclude them from heaven.
rhutchin
God knowing that people will use that “free will” to pursue their selfish desires
br.d
Does anyone see how this statement is designed to create a FACADE of “MERE” permission?? :-]
What the Calvinist doesn’t tell you is:
Since Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within peoples brains – he obviously knows how people will use their “free will” because he meticulously determines what their free will will be. :-]
br.d writes, ‘What the Calvinist doesn’t tell you is:
Since Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within peoples brains – he obviously knows how people will use their “free will” because he meticulously determines what their free will will be.”
Maybe br.d was sleeping in class. Calvinism tells us that it is God who gives life to a person and withholds faith until such time as God chooses to have the person hear the gospel and receive faith. Without faith, a person will freely submit to the ways of the world and be selfish, covetous, and prideful. It is God who created the person’s marvelous brain that directs and responds to the multitude of impulses that arise from placing one’s hand on a hot surface to going out into freezing cold to satisfying the urges of their selfish, covetous, and prideful hearts. All was determined by God when He gave life to the person who also determined his parents, his culture, and the environment that would give rise to the impulses that would surge through his brain. It is under these conditions that some say man has “free will” and Luther said, “Free will is a lie.”
br.d writes, ‘What the Calvinist doesn’t tell you is:
Since Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within peoples brains – he obviously knows how people will use their “free will” because he meticulously determines what their free will will be.”
rhutchin
Maybe br.d was sleeping in class.
br.d
I didn’t have to take Calvinism’s Essentials on Double-Speak
The Calvinist makes understanding that class super easy! :-]
rhutchin
Calvinism tells us that it is God who gives life to a person and withholds faith until such time as God chooses to have the person hear the gospel and receive faith. Without faith, a person will freely submit to the ways of the world and be selfish, covetous, and prideful.
br.d
If only a Calvinist could tell the WHOLE TRUTH!!!
In Calvinism – the state of nature (including man’s nature) at any instance in time – is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god.
No decree = no impulse.
Whether Calvin’s god gives a person a TRUE faith or a FALSE faith – doesn’t change that fact.
Understanding Calvinism is easy
A Calvinist is a Determinist – trying to make his Deterministic world APPEAR IN-Deterministic.
And that explains why he can’t tell the WHOLE TRUTH.
br.d writes, “In Calvinism – the state of nature (including man’s nature) at any instance in time – is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god.”
Calvinism tells us that it is God who gives life to a person and withholds faith until such time as God chooses to have the person hear the gospel and receive faith. Without faith, a person will freely submit to the ways of the world and be selfish, covetous, and prideful. That outcome is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god. Thus, Paul writes, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”
br.d
In Calvinism – the state of nature (including man’s nature) at any instance in time – is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god.
And that is always a fact – whether or not – that which Calvin’s god decrees – is a TRUE faith or a FALSE faith.
rhutchin
Calvinism tells us that it is God who gives life to ………..etc…etc…etc
br.d
Calvinism says all sorts of things – much of which is strategically misleading!
Never the less it is still the case:
In Calvinism – the state of nature (including man’s nature) at any instance in time – is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god.
And that is always a fact – whether or not – that which Calvin’s god decrees – is a TRUE faith or a FALSE faith.
br.d writes, “Never the less it is still the case: “In Calvinism – the state of nature (including man’s nature) at any instance in time – is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god.”
Calvinism tells us that it is God who gives life to a person and withholds faith until such time as God chooses to have the person hear the gospel and receive faith. Without faith, a person will freely submit to the ways of the world and be selfish, covetous, and prideful. That outcome is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god. Thus, Paul writes, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”
br.d
Never the less it is still the case: “In Calvinism – the state of nature (including man’s nature) at any instance in time – is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god.”
And that is still a fact – whether or not Calvin’s god decrees a TRUE faith or a FALSE faith.
rhutchin
Calvinism tells us that it is God who gives life…….etc…etc…etc
br.d
Never the less it is still the case – see above
FOH writes, “In fact no king or queen in history ever has completely controlled their people (certainly not their heart, and actions, and thoughts!). ”
That’s because no king or queen in history has ever been omnipotent having a perfect understanding of his/her realm and all the inhabitants of that realm. No king or queen in history could control the evil actions of its subjects and was able to restrain the evil that they would do if left to their own devices. God is much different than any king or queen in history.
Then, “Someone “sovereign” in the way that Calvinists insist would not make these statements. Let alone HUNDREDS of times in HUNDREDS of semantic formulas!”
Calvinists do not forget how the Scriptures say that people have corrupt hearts and have their minds set on fleshly pleasures and that they continue this way until God gives them faith. Of course, FOH rejects the notion that faith is necessary to salvation and that no one can have faith until they hear the gospel.
Then, “These verses say that He can do whatever He wants with His creation, but they DO NOT say that whatever happens is what He wants or from His hand. ”
The Scriptures say that the intentions of people are only evil continually and no one will, or can, do good except, and until, God gives them the faith to do good.
Then, “There is a big difference between “God does what He wants” (what we would all ascribe to) and “all that happens is what God wants, even rape and torture” (what Calvinists ascribe to).”
Even FOH knows that God is present during every evil act – including rape and torture – and that God could easily stop any evil act before it begins by His unchangeable decree, but God has given people a “free will” that they use to perpetrate every evil that they can think of while boasting, “There is no God.”
rhutchin
Even FOH knows that God is present during every evil act….
br.d
and FOH knows that Calvin’s god infallibly decrees every evil act and make the the evilness of its evil come to pass irresistibly.
For his good pleasure of course! :-]
John Calvin
-quote
He MOVES the will, not according to the system maintained and believed for many ages, in such a manner that it would afterwards be at our option either to obey the IMPULSE or to RESIST it. (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they are merely INSTRUMENTS, into which God constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS and converts to any purpose AT HIS PLEASURE. (Institutes)
rhutchin: “Even FOH knows that God is present during every evil act….”
br.d: “and FOH knows that Calvin’s god infallibly decrees every evil act and make the the evilness of its evil come to pass irresistibly.”
Yes, God is sovereign and nothing can happen unless God decree it to happen. God, by His omnipotent power, can stop any evil act and God always has the final say in any evil act that is committed – it is God’s decision, His decree, that prevails. By His infinite understanding God purposed and planned everything that we see unfolding today and did so before He created the world.
rhutchin
Yes, God is sovereign and nothing can happen unless God decree it to happen.
br.d
Yeah!
We can tell the truth when we want to! :-]
rhutchin
God, by His omnipotent power, can stop any evil act
br.d
All except for those evil acts he’s infallibly decreed
And since an infallible decree is required for every evil act then – then it LOGICALLY follows – the infallible decree would have to be stopped.
And a RATIONAL mind can guess how often that will happen! :-]
rhutcin
God always has the final say in any evil act
br.d
That’s because he has the ONLY say in any evil act! 😀
rhutchin
It is God’s decision, His decree, that prevails.
br.d
Yeah!! Since no evil act can exist without a decree – it LOGICALLY follows – his decree prevails against that which he doesn’t decree. 😀
rhutchin
By His infinite understanding God purposed and planned everything that we see unfolding today and did so before He created the world.
br.d
*AS-*F that infinite understanding was of what he would “MERELY” permit the creature to be/do!
Understanding Calvinism is easy
A Calvinist is a Determinist – trying to make his Deterministic world APPEAR IN-Deterministic ;-]
rhutchin: “God, by His omnipotent power, can stop any evil act”
br.d: “All except for those evil acts he’s infallibly decreed”
God has omnipotent power and has the ability to stop any evil act. Those evil acts that God chooses to stop are then written in His decree and at that point, cannot be undone. God’s decree is a perfectly wise decree and to change the decree would be to create a decree based on less than perfect wisdom. Therefore, that which God has infallibly decree stands.
rhutchin:
God, by His omnipotent power, can stop any evil act”
br.d
All except for those evil acts he’s infallibly decreed come to pass
And since no evil event can come to pass without an infallible decree – a RATIONAL person can guess how many events will be stopped. :-]
rhutchin
God chooses to stop are then written in His decree and at that point, cannot be undone.
br.d
BINGO!
No decree = no event
And that is TRUE – whether the event which is decreed – is evil or not.
br.d writes, “BINGO! No decree = no event And that is TRUE – whether the event which is decreed – is evil or not.”
We have agreed to this from the beginning. God’s decree precedes His act of creation. Everything contained in the decree comes to fruition, anything not contained in the decree never comes to fruition.
br.d
BINGO!
No decree = no event
And that is TRUE – whether the event which is decreed – is evil or not.”
rhutchin
We have agreed to this from the beginning. God’s decree precedes His act of creation. Everything contained in the decree comes to fruition, anything not contained in the decree never comes to fruition.
br.d
Yes – but I like to make statements that are as brief and precise as possible – and avoid using language that is misleading.
Rhutchin says: “For this reason, Jeremiah can be read, “something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind [to command or mention].””
And I agree. It never entered God’s mind to command child sacrifice. But Calvinists would have to say that it never entered His mind to command it, but that He did irresistibly decree it anyway. That He didn’t command them to sacrifice their children, but He did predestine it and cause it to happen. And so, Calvinists would say that the people can be held accountable for doing something God said not to do even though He predestined/caused them break His command. (So they disobey God’s spoken command in obedience to His hidden decree! Isn’t that really just a different form of obedience?) And that’s the kind of god Calvinists love, honor, worship, and serve!
Heather
And so, Calvinists would say that the people can be held accountable for doing something God said not to do even though He predestined/caused them break His command. (So they disobey God’s spoken command in obedience to His hidden decree! Isn’t that really just a different form of obedience?) And that’s the kind of god Calvinists love, honor, worship, and serve!
roland
I wanted to point something out that Scripture teaches us and Calvinists believe. As to the first part of your statement about God holding people accountable for doing something God said not to do. Yes, Scripture teaches us that God does this on several occasions. Here’s one example from Isaiah 10:5-12
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.
8 For he says,
‘Are not my princes altogether kings?
9 Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
10 As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols,
Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
11 As I have done to Samaria and her idols,
Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’ ”
12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has [b]performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.”
We read here that God is sending, giving Assyria charge, to seize, to take, and to tread, yet it is not in Assyria’s mind to do those things but it is in its heart to destroy. Here, God is using Assyria’s heart to accomplish God’s will. Also, notice verse 12, the Lord is going to judge Assyria for what they did even though God sends Assyria to do it.
As to the second part of your statement, Calvinists do not teach that this is some form of obedience as Scripture never teaches us that . Look at these verses, while Assyria does all that God wants them to do, it is never written as Assyria obeying.
It is also interesting that when Dr. Flowers “de-calvnizes” these verses on youtube, Dr. Flowers changes the meaning of these verses as saying that God “permitted” or “permits” Assyria to take its actions. Under a libertarian freewill system, what Dr. Flowers does, changing the verse to mean “permit,” is what must be done in order to make Scripture fit this system. Under a Calvinistic system we don’t change the meaning of verses where it is shown that God is the primary actor such as Isaiah 10. That’s why I believe Calvinism is a more faithful reading of the Bible than non-calvinists reading of the Bible. Non-calvinists approach the Bible with a philosophic system not a biblical system.
roland
I wanted to point something out that Scripture teaches us and Calvinists believe. As to the first part of your statement about God holding people accountable for doing something God said not to do.
br.d
This is easily understood as Calvinism’s TWO divine wills.
1) We have the SECRET will
2) We have the ENUNCIATED will (aka REVEALED will)
3) The SECRET will is CAUSAL
4) The ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will is NON-CAUSAL
There are instances in which the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will – serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will
For example:
Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will is that you will do [X]
While Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – infallibly decreed – and RENDERED-CERTAIN – that you will NOT do [X]
In this case – the infallible decree does NOT PERMIT you to do [X]
So what the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will commands you to do – the SECRET will does not PERMIT
Thus the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will
br.d
This is easily understood as Calvinism’s TWO divine wills.
1) We have the SECRET will
2) We have the ENUNCIATED will (aka REVEALED will)
3) The SECRET will is CAUSAL
4) The ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will is NON-CAUSAL
roland
I quote Scripture to prove Calvinism and you respond with this argument. This is why you and I will never understand each other. As I’ve stated many times before. Calvinists point to Scripture to support their beliefs and non-calvinists point to philosophy, reason, logic, etc.
In Calvinism we have the doctrine of TWO wills
1) We have the SECRET will
2) We have the ENUNCIATED will (aka REVEALED will)
3) The SECRET will is CAUSAL
4) The ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will is NON-CAUSAL
roland
I quote Scripture to prove Calvinism and you respond with this argument.
br.d
The question then becomes – what statement I made – does not LOGICALLY follow in Calvinism.
Now is your opportunity to answer that question.
Roland
This is why you and I will never understand each other.
br.d
Because you do not understand RATIONAL reasoning?
Roland
As I’ve stated many times before. Calvinists point to Scripture to support their beliefs and non-calvinists point to philosophy, reason, logic, etc.
br.d
Roland – your thinking here is really missing the mark!
Let me explain:
1) Calvinist Theologian_A asserts that scripture supports Proposition [X]
2) Calvinist Theologian_B asserts that scripture does not support Proposition [X]
LOGIC tells us:
– If Calvinist Theologian_A’s scriptural support is TRUE – then Calvinist Theologian_B’s scriptural support is FALSE
– If Calvinist Theologian_B’s scriptural support is TRUE – then Calvinist Theologian_A’s scriptural support is FALSE
– Calvinist Theologian_A’s scriptural support may be FALSE – and Calvinist Theologian_B’s scriptural support FALSE
But they cannot BOTH be TRUE
Now we this is the power of LOGIC.
And without LOGIC you are shooting yourself in the foot.
In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.
The more you depart from LOGIC – the more you depart from scripture. :-]
br.d
Because you do not understand RATIONAL reasoning?
roland
Yes, I understand rational reasoning. My statement was intended to communicate the fact the you and are I operating on different presuppositions. You presuppose that logic and reason are at least foundation to Scripture and maybe even superior. While I presuppose that Scripture is superior to both logic and reason.
It shows in your statement that “The more you depart from LOGIC – the more you depart from scripture. :-]”
roland
you and are I operating on different presuppositions.
You presuppose that logic and reason are at least foundation to Scripture and maybe even superior.
br.d
Not quite
Scripture is the expression of the divine mind.
The divine mind is a perfect mind
A perfect mind is NOT ILLOGICAL
When any interpretation of scripture is revealed as ILLOGICAL – it is NOT LOGICAL to conclude scripture as the problem
LOGIC is simply a tool – one chooses to use or not use.
Take the example I just provided of the two Calvinist Theologians who disagreed with each other.
They both could follow your reasoning – and say – we don’t follow LOGIC – therefore both of us are right.
We put the bible first they would say
We refuse to put LOGIC over scripture
Therefore – even though we contradict each other – scripture says we we are both right
So there is a reason why people refrain from using LOGIC.
It reveals things they don’t want to see
br.d writes, “For example:
Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will is that you will do [X]
While Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – infallibly decreed – and RENDERED-CERTAIN – that you will NOT do [X]
In this case – the infallible decree does NOT PERMIT you to do [X]
So what the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will commands you to do – the SECRET will does not PERMIT
Thus the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will”
Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will is that you will do [X] (e.g., obey the Ten Commandments)
While God – at the foundation of the world – infallibly decreed – and RENDERED-CERTAIN – that you will NOT do [X] (obey the Ten Commandments by making you unable to obey the Ten commandments)
In this case – the God does NOT PERMIT you to do [X] (obey the Ten Commandments)
So what God, through His ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will, commands you to do – God, through His secret will, does not PERMIT
Thus the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of actual events and the SECRET will a true representation of actual events and these are contained in His decree.
br.d
So what God, through His ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will, commands you to do – God, through His secret will, does not PERMIT
Thus the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will
rhutchin
Thus the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of actual events
br..d
Thus the ENUNCIATED/REVEALED will serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will which determines actual events
rhutchin
and the SECRET will serves as a true representation oaf actual events and these are contained in His decree.
br,d
Correct!
See you can tell the truth some times! :-]
Heather writes, “But Calvinists would have to say that it never entered His mind to command it, but that He did irresistibly decree it anyway. That He didn’t command them to sacrifice their children, but He did predestine it and cause it to happen.”
Well, God told Adam not to eat the fruit knowing that Adam would eat the fruit, didn’t He? God gave Israel the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws knowing that Israel would not keep either the commandments or the laws.
Then, “Calvinists would say that the people can be held accountable for doing something God said not to do even though He predestined/caused them break His command.”
Yep. Jesus said, “No one can come to (believe in) me…” That is because people are not born with faith and without faith, a person will follow his corrupt nature and sin. God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin because they lacked faith.
Then, “And that’s the kind of god Calvinists love, honor, worship, and serve!”
Yep. Calvinists are overwhelmed that God would save anyone, much less them.
rhutchin
Well, God told Adam not to eat the fruit knowing that Adam would eat the fruit, didn’t He?
br.d
See explanation of how this works in Calvinism here:
https://soteriology101.com/2021/04/28/frustrated-by-the-state-of-the-world/#comment-56249
Rhutchin
And I agree. It never entered God’s mind to command child sacrifice.
br.d
In Calvinism – not quite!
John Calvin
-quote
Since god’s will is said to be the CAUSE of all things, I have made this providence the determinative principle for all human plans and works, not only in order to display its FORCE in the elect…..but also to COMPEL the reprobate to obedience. – (Institutes)
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what he INSPIRES
(A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
-quote
Hence they are merely instruments, into which god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
CONCLUSION:
There may be no verbal “command” in this case – but there certainly is an infallible decree – which does NOT PERMIT the person do to otherwise than is infallibly decreed – and as such is COMMANDING.
br.d writes, “there certainly is an infallible decree – which does NOT PERMIT the person do to otherwise than is infallibly decreed – and as such is COMMANDING.”
A decree has no power of its own. It cannot coerce the events of the decree. It can only declare that those events are certain and cannot be avoided. It is the antecedent causes that bring about the events of the decree to happen with the first cause being God’s creation of the world.
br.d
“there certainly is an infallible decree – which does NOT PERMIT the person do to otherwise than is infallibly decreed – and as such is COMMANDING.”
rhutchin
A decree has no power of its own. It cannot coerce the events of the decree.
br.d
You have no way of proving that of course.
And its a red-herring anyway – since all it has to do is NOT PERMIT the creature do otherwise.
Unless you want to argue – a creature is PERMITTED to falsify an infallible decree!
It will be fun to watch you twist words into a pretzel for that one! :-]
rhutchin: “A decree has no power of its own. It cannot coerce the events of the decree.”
br.d: “You have no way of proving that of course. And its a red-herring anyway – since all it has to do is NOT PERMIT the creature do otherwise.”
A decree has no more power than the person enforcing the decree. God’s omnipotence is the force behind His decree.
rhutchin
A decree has no power of its own. It cannot coerce the events of the decree.”
br.d
You have no way of proving that of course.
And its a red-herring anyway – since all it has to do is NOT PERMIT the creature do otherwise.
rhutchin
A decree has no more power than the person enforcing the decree.
br.d
See – I told you that you had no way of proving it! :-]
rhutchin
God’s omnipotence is the force behind His decree.
br.d
Nothing here to see – move along – move along :-]
All of which is a red-herring anyway – since the creature is NOT PERMITTED to disobey/falsify an infallible decree
Unless perhaps you can name one single sinful/evil impulse – which Calvin’s god PERMITTED your brain to disobey or falsify ;-]
Rhutchin: “Well, God told Adam not to eat the fruit knowing that Adam would eat the fruit, didn’t He? God gave Israel the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws knowing that Israel would not keep either the commandments or the laws.”
Yes, but that’s not the honest Calvinist interpretation, now is it? In Calvinism, God didn’t just “know” they would break His commands; He predestined that they would. He gave them commands that He preplanned to cause them to break, giving them no choice to do anything otherwise (and then He punishes them for what He made them do). That’s a big difference.
Then Rhutchin agrees with me that “Calvinists would say that the people can be held accountable for doing something God said not to do even though He predestined/caused them break His command.” And he adds: “God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin because they lacked faith.” (Obviously meaning that they lacked the faith that God gave to the elect but withheld from them.)
Thank you for just admitting it outright, not trying to spin it or sugarcoat it. That’s refreshing!
And then Rhutchin agrees that “that’s the kind of god Calvinists love, honor, worship, and serve!” He says: “Yep. Calvinists are overwhelmed that God would save anyone, much less them.”
I’m sorry your god is so stingy with his love and grace (that his hate/wrath is so much bigger than his love/grace) that Calvinists have to be shocked that he would save anyone at all. But if I had a wretched, unjust, untrustworthy god like Calvinism teaches, I’d be shocked too that that kind of god could love anyone.
heather writes, “Yes, but that’s not the honest Calvinist interpretation, now is it? In Calvinism, God didn’t just “know” they would break His commands; He predestined that they would.”
Yes. God knew Adam would eat the fruit. God could have decreed a different outcome. God did not. How is that different from the non-Calvinist theology?
Then, ‘he adds: “God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin because they lacked faith.” (Obviously meaning that they lacked the faith that God gave to the elect but withheld from them.) ”
It is God who gives faith to people. So, the elect received faith and the non-elect did not. So, duh!!! Let’s see you explain it without sugarcoating it.
Then, “But if I had a wretched, unjust, untrustworthy god like Calvinism teaches, I’d be shocked too that that kind of god could love anyone.”
So, your God saves everyone – Right?
Rhutchin: “Yes. God knew Adam would eat the fruit. God could have decreed a different outcome. God did not. How is that different from the non-Calvinist theology?”
As explained time and time again ad infinitum: Non-Calvinists believe that God didn’t preplan/cause it to happen, just that He knew it would happen, allowed it to happen, and worked it into His plans, meaning that Adam truly made his own choice (that he had real options to choose between). Calvinists would have to say that God preplanned it to happen, caused it to happen, and that Adam was simply making the decision that God predetermined he would make (and that God punished him for the choice God made him make). I’m sorry you can’t see the difference.
(And despite the fact that Calvinists regularly accuse non-Calvinists of denying God’s foreknowledge because we don’t agree with their definition of foreknowledge, it’s the Calvinists who actually deny God’s foreknowledge. Because Calvinists believe that foreknowing is essentially “fore-planning and then causing it to happen,” that God only “foreknows” what He Himself preplanned/causes. Whereas non-Calvinists stick with the real meaning of foreknowing: knowing beforehand. Not preplanning and causing. It’s the Calvinists who deny God’s foreknowledge by changing it into something it isn’t.)
Rhutchin: “It is God who gives faith to people.”
That’s a Calvinist presupposition without real biblical support (except for all the half-verses they twist out of context), and then Calvinists build their theology on it. So you’ll have to excuse me for not accepting a theology that builds on unbiblical presuppositions.
Rhutchin: “So, your God saves everyone – Right?”
Ah, back to the false Calvinist dichotomy of “Either God saves everyone or God elects certain people to save.” If Calvinists are locked into this false dichotomy then it’s no wonder they can only side with “God elects certain people to save.” (Calvinists have many false dichotomies meant to trap Christians into their theology: “Either God is in control or man is in control”… “Either God controls everything or God controls nothing”… “Either God is sovereign [their definition of sovereign] or He isn’t”… “Either God does all the work of saving us [the elect] or man saves himself,” etc. They strategically leave out the biblically correct answer to force people to pick the Calvinist answer.) I’m sorry Calvinists can’t grasp the idea that God could make salvation available to all and then allow men to decide whether to accept it or reject it. I mean, seriously, how hard is that to grasp?
A human example: A man buys 100 candy bars for 100 people in a room, and he puts them on the table and says “Anyone who wants one can come up and take one.” He’s made it available for all. He paid the price for all. But he gives them the option to accept or reject it.
I don’t see why that’s such a difficult concept to grasp.
And in response to other Calvinist comments on this post … It’s funny to me that Calvinists always accuse non-Calvinists of being “man-centered” for saying that God loves all men and made salvation available to all men. But to me, it sounds like Calvinists are the “man-centered” ones because of their hyper-focus on the “wretched, wicked, totally depraved” condition of man. This hyper-focus on man’s “totally depraved” condition then causes them to minimize God’s love and grace and mercy, to the point that they have to be surprised that God would love/save anyone at all. It all comes back to their over-focus on man’s “totally depraved” condition, using that as a starting point to figure out how God acts towards people.
But non-Calvinists focus on God’s character first, as He reveals Himself throughout the Bible: A God who is truly loving, compassionate, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, who is overflowing with love for ALL men, even those who will reject Him, who desires a relationship with everyone and who died for everyone to make salvation available for everyone because He wants everyone in heaven with Him. But He lets us choose to accept it or reject it.
Non-Calvinists are humbled by, shocked by, how big God’s love is for all of us sinful people. How gracious He is to humans who don’t deserve it. How He would sacrifice Himself for us, even though many will reject Him anyway. That is some amazing love!
Whereas Calvinists are shocked that their god would/could love even ONE person, putting a cap on God’s love/grace because of their hyper-focus on man’s “total depravity.”
Who’s man-centered now?
(You may have the last word, Rhutchin. I’m done.)
THE CALVINIST NEED TO SMUGGLE “MEER” PERMISSION BACK INTO HIS SYSTEM
Rhutchin
: “Yes. God knew Adam would eat the fruit. God could have decreed a different outcome. God did not. How is that different from the non-Calvinist theology?”
br.d
rhutchin – knows full well what the critical difference between Calvinist and Non-Calvinist is in regard to human functionality
He’s simply trying to MASQUERADE Calvinism *AS-IF* there is no difference.
In his day, John Calvin argued with those who disagreed with his system on this very issue.
His detractors argued that humans are ALLOWED / PERMITTED to exercise human functionality, choices, etc
Calvin railed against this calling it a: “Frigid Invention” and an “Evasion”
This – in Calvinism – is called “MERE” permission
“MERE” permission equates to Libertarian Freedom
Therefore “MERE” permission is rejected.
John Calvin
-quote
“It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not
by His will, but MERELY by His permission.”
John Calvin
-quote
But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [idly] PERMITS them, when Scripture shows
Him not only willing but the AUTHOR of them.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 176)
The Calvinist today – for emotional reasons – needs to SMUGGLE “MERE” permission back into his system.
The vast majority of rhutchin’s posts here at SOT101 – simply follow that mode.
br.d: “rhutchin – knows full well what the critical difference between Calvinist and Non-Calvinist is in regard to human functionality”
Yeah! Calvinists say that God made Adam and Eve as imperfect beings who could only obtain perfection through obedience to God. God opened the gate to the garden so that Satan could enter the garden and tempt Eve to eat the fruit and then get Adam to eat also. Surprise! Eve ate the fruit and then gave the fruit to Adam who ate also. Of course, as Heather knows, God knew beforehand that this would happen – even before He created the world. So, what does br.d imagine that non-Calvinists offer that is any different than that?
rhutchin
Calvinists say that God made Adam and Eve as imperfect beings who could only obtain perfection through obedience to God.
br.d
Firstly – Calvinist language is strategically loaded with IMPLICATURES designed to make things within Calvinism APPEAR to be TRUE which are in fact FALSE – and make things APPEAR FALSE – which are in fact TRUE
Secondly- on this point – Calvinism all human impulses are infallibly decreed – and there is no such thing as disobedience to an infallible decree.
The question becomes – how much of Calvinism’s DELUSORY language can a person stomach before throwing up! :-]
br.d writes, “there is no such thing as disobedience to an infallible decree.”
Adam disobeyed God’s law as God had decreed. Adam could not disobey God’s decree as neither he, nor anyone else, knows God’s decree until events within the decree are fulfilled. The decree is like a prophecy.
br.d
Adam eating the fruit – was infallibly decreed – and there is no such thing as disobedience to an infallible decree.”
rhutchin
Adam disobeyed God’s law as God had decreed.
br.d
Therefore Adam obeyed the infallible decree – which was for Adam to disobey Calvin’s god’s law which Calvin’s god decreed
rhutchin
Adam could not disobey God’s decree as neither he, nor anyone else, knows God’s decree until events within the decree are fulfilled. The decree is like a prophecy.
br.d
*AS-IF* Adam knowing the infallible decree in advance would somehow make it the case that Adam could disobey that decree.
Whether Adam knows in advance or not – is irrelevant.
The Calvinist for example – doesn’t know if his election is decreed to be infallibly TRUE or infallibility FALSE
But If he observes himself taking the mark of the beast – then that should give him some indication! :-]
Heather,
You did a great job with this post! I am not surprised that you are “done” with RH, only surprised that you were so patient to go this far!
In regard to your foreknowledge, there is a huge section of the church of Christ (for instance Eastern Orthodox branches) that interprets that differently than you or RH. Calvinists say He planned it all —even the evil, rape and torture. Many others say that He only knew it and stood by to let it happen. Still others say He knew all possible outcomes, but waited on man to decide which (of many) directions he would go.
This third option makes sense of the hundreds of places in Scripture where God says “should have” “would have” “if you had only” “I expected this but you did this”.
Of course Calvinism has no answer for any of these hundreds of passages, except the ol “well it can’t really mean what it says now can it!?” Over and over and over.
As for the false dichotomy that “our God saves everyone, right?” I wish He did! I have elsewhere explained that their accusation of all others being universalists actually comes back on them: they are the universalists (God takes everyone) only in their version, God only takes “some” of everyone. It’s really the same: God takes only the people He wants (all or a select few).
To your candy bar analogy, they might respond that if only 10 people take a candy bar, then the other 90 “are wasted” (i.e. Christ spilled blood that is wasted).
But Passover takes care of that for us. They did not need to put “all” of the blood on the mantle, only have some of it on there. There was still plenty of “wasted” blood in the bucket when they were done.
Of course we also remember that anyone who did not apply the blood (take God up on His offer) was visited by the angel of death.
The offer is there. The plan for salvation is there…given by God. But the blood has to be applied in faith. There is no scriptural evidence —-anywhere—- that God supplies the faith. That is what allows Him to have a real (not forced, not one-directional) relationship with His people.
FOH
Of course Calvinism has no answer for any of these hundreds of passages, except the ol “well it can’t really mean what it says now can it!?” Over and over and over.
roland
Calvinism does have answers. I would direct to John Frame’s text “The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship.” Pages 150-151, 501-505, he discusses the problems with “middle knowledge,” as well as Arminian view of God’s knowledge.
Here are some quotes from Frame:
“Molina held, in other words to a radical libertarianism. Reformed theology of course denies this (Molina’s radical libertarianism). But Reformed theology does not deny that God has knowledge of hypothetical matters. He knows what will happen, for example, if David stays at Keilah and if he leaves Keilah.”
” In 1 Samuel 23:9-13, God reveals to David what the men of Keilah will to to him if he stays there. So he leaves Keilah, and of course what God revealed to him does not take place. This passage indicates that God knows what will happen in any hypothetical situation, EVEN THOSE THAT NEVER TAKE PLACE.”
Using a hypothetical Frame writes:
“So God knows that if Billy is fatally shot at sixty, he cannot live to be eighty. Therefore, as part of his eternal plan, God prevents Bill from being fatally shot at sixty. God’s will is formulated according to knowledge, including his foreknowledge of creatures; but his knowledge is also dependent upon the decisions of his will.”
Middle knowledge, that is the idea that God had to learn of all the best possible choices his creatures would make is denied by Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches us in many places that God does not learn. Isaiah 40:13-14
13 Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,
Or as His counselor has taught Him?
14 With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him,
And taught Him in the path of justice?
Who taught Him knowledge,
And showed Him the way of understanding?
Who has taught God? This implies that God lacked knowledge such as is claimed in Arminian and Molinist views of God’s knowledge. No one has taught God because He does not lack knowledge.
Who instructed God? Again, implies a lack of knowledge as argued by Molinists, when it is clearly a rhetorical question.
Who taught Him knowledge? No one because God has full knowledge. He doesn’t need to examine all possible or hypothetical events or look down through the corridor of time to learn what His creatures will choose. Does He who teaches man, Psalm 94:10, lack knowledge? Certainly not. Calvinists have answers to what you claim we don’t have. And our answer is not “well it can’t really mean what it says now can it!?” Over and over and over.”
A few comments and clarifications on Middle Knowledge
Roland
Middle knowledge, that is the idea that God had to LEARN of all the best possible choices his creatures would make
br.d
This is NOT an accurate description of Middle Knowledge
Firstly – Middle knowledge is THEORETICAL knowledge
Omniscience (i.e. knowledge) whether it is Theoretical or not – does not entail LEARNING
It is simply something that is inherently known
Secondly – Middle Knowledge is not knowledge of “best possible” choices creatures would make.
It is simply sufficient knowledge of the creature to ensure whatever choice the creature WOULD make is known.
Roland
So God knows that if Billy is fatally shot at sixty, he cannot live to be eighty. Therefore, as part of his eternal plan, God PREVENT Bill from being fatally shot at sixty.
br.d
What you are saying here is that Calvin’s god PREVENTS himself from infallibly decreeing Bill from being fatally shot.
Bill being fatally shot is a THEORETICAL event
So what is being PREVENTED here is Calvin’s god’s changing that event from a “Theoretical” to “Actualized” event.
Since this event has not possibility of ever being actualized – to say it was prevented is a NON-NORMATIVE use of the word “Prevent”
That is why the Calvinist appeal to divine prevention is deceptive language.
It is language which presents something as TRUE – which is in fact FALSE
Roland
Molina held, in other words to a radical libertarianism
br.d
Actually – I think this is hypocrisy – because most Calvinists hold to the same exact FORM of freedom.
They are simply not honest enough to acknowledge it.
rhutchin for example – is always crafting statements which LOGICALLY INFER “MERE” Permission – which in Calvinism equates to Libertarian freedom.
For example “Infinite understanding of his creatures – and this infinite understanding is the basis of his decrees”
This is clearly language which LOGICALLY INFERS Middle Knowledge of Libertarian choices.
When this becomes the “basis for decrees” what we have is a Deterministic SIMULATION of Libertarian Freedom.
So the Calvinist ends up accusing others of wanting the very thing he SMUGGLES in for himself :-]
br.d
This is NOT an accurate description of Middle Knowledge
Firstly – Middle knowledge is THEORETICAL knowledge
Omniscience (i.e. knowledge) whether it is Theoretical or not – does not entail LEARNING
It is simply something that is inherently known
roland
Middle knowledge is not just THEORETICAL knowledge. It is a theory of knowledge with a purpose: its purpose is to harmonize the Pelagian notion of the libertarian freewill with God’s omiscience. So in a middle knowledge theory, the human will is free, so that in can do one thing and not another, in other words there are many choices that the human freewill can make in many given situations. Middle knowledge argues that the human will is free, even from God’s decree. Since it is free from God’s decree, before God can make a decree, He must “learn” all the choices humans will make in all hypothetical situations. After having “learned” all this, then God can make a decree. This is why Herman Bavinck refers to middle knowledge as making God “adopt of posture of watchful waiting. He watches to see what they are going to do.” That’s a false perception of God and His knowledge.
Implicitly, at the very least, God’s omniscience is denied by those who hold to a theory of middle knowledge
.br.d
Actually – I think this is hypocrisy – because most Calvinists hold to the same exact FORM of freedom.
They are simply not honest enough to acknowledge it.
roland
Calvinists hold to “radical libertarianism”? That’s funny that you would write that. I can’t think of one Calvinist who holds to Molina’s form of radical libertarianism.
br.d
What you are saying here is that Calvin’s god PREVENTS himself from infallibly decreeing Bill from being fatally shot.
Bill being fatally shot is a THEORETICAL event
roland
No, I did not say that and you really like telling me what I am saying. Your statement above doesn’t even make sense. How can God prevent Himself from infallibly decreeing Bill from being fatally shot? God is in PERFECT HARMONY with Himself. I know you reject this but Calvinists teach this, believe this, and we derive this from Scripture. As much as you would like to argue that God prevents himself from such and such in a non-normative use of the word prevent, it is your argument, not ours, it is your understanding of God and His decrees, not ours.
roland
Middle knowledge is not just THEORETICAL knowledge. It is a theory of knowledge with a purpose: its purpose is to harmonize the Pelagian notion of the libertarian freewill with God’s omiscience.
br.d
Well on that reasoning – you would be a semi-Pelagian – because you here have argued for a FORM of Libertarian freedom – which would have to coincide with your understanding of divine omniscience
Roland
So in a middle knowledge theory, the human will is free,
br.d
More precisely – using John Calvin’s language – the creature is “MERELY” permitted to make choices without those choices being previously determined by Calvin’s god.
So in Calvinism – “MERE” permission equates to Libertarian freedom
And that is why Calvin rejects “MERE” permission
Roland
so that in can do one thing and not another,
br.d
WONDERFUL!
You do understand the what is called PAP “The principle of alternative possibilities”
And you understand what is acknowledge by all academia – that PAP is Mutually excluded by Exhaustive Determinism
John Calvin understood this – and that is why he said:
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.” (institutes)
But he also knows that is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
-quote
It was IMPOSSIBLE for him [a man] to resist God, who had decreed this event from eternity. (Institutes)
Roland
Middle knowledge argues that the human will is free, even from God’s decree.
br.d
Only in the sense that the decree does not DETERMINE what that choice will be – bur rather “MERELY” permits it.
Roland
Since it is free from God’s decree, before God can make a decree, He must “learn” all the choices humans will make in all hypothetical
br.d
Here is how your reasoning back-fires.
Your reasoning follows this mode:
There is NO omniscience of what [X] WOULD be without a decree to establish what [X] WOULD be.
So we apply that to reasoning to David at Keilah
It was NOT decreed that Saul would come down into the city.and the people would give up David to Saul
Therefore there is NO omniscient what Saul and the people WOULD do – without LEARNING it.
roland
Calvinists hold to “radical libertarianism”? That’s funny that you would write that. I can’t think of one Calvinist who holds to Molina’s form of radical libertarianism.
br.d
Go back and read my statement again.
The very FORM of freedom the Calvinist wants is what we are talking about
The Calvinist simply isn’t honest enough to acknowledge it.
For example – you have argued that “MERE” permission is true – and you reject John Calvin’s statements.
“MERE” permission equates to Libertarian freedom
Therefore you’r revealing your need for the same exact FORM of Libertarian Freedom
br.d
On prevention – what you are saying here is that Calvin’s god PREVENTS himself from infallibly decreeing Bill from being fatally shot.
Bill being fatally shot is a THEORETICAL event
roland
No, I did not say that and you really like telling me what I am saying. Your statement above doesn’t even make sense. How can God prevent Himself from infallibly decreeing Bill from being fatally shot?
br.d
You say my statement doesn’t make sense and then you ask how Calvin’s god can prevent himself from making a choice?
Cmon Roland – think a little bit!!
Roland
God is in PERFECT HARMONY with Himself.
br.d
Therefore – every choice he makes for what will come to pass is a PERFECT choice
And it is LOGICALLY incoherent to say a PERFECT choice needs to be prevented
Thus the notion of divine prevention – in a world in which every event is meticulously PRE-scripted in advance – is logically incoherent.
The author of a novel may choose to add into the script – that Billy be fatally shot
Or he may choose to NOT add that into the script
We can say he Prevented the script from having Billy shot
Or we can say he prevented himself from adding that into the script
Either one of those is viable.
But both of them are NON-NORMAL use of the term “Prevent” because it is NOT NORMAL to say an event that was never going to come to pass was prevented.
Roland writes, ‘God’s omniscience is denied by those who hold to a theory of middle knowledge”
With regard to the one world that Molinism says that God chooses to create and that then occupies God’s free knowledge, God is omniscient and knows everything down to the minutest detail of that world. It is this world that Calvinism describes in its theology so Molinism and Calvinism agree that God’s knowledge of the world He chose to create is exhaustive and omniscient. Molinism does not work with non-Calvinist theologies.
Then, ‘Middle knowledge argues that the human will is free, even from God’s decree. Since it is free from God’s decree, before God can make a decree, He must “learn” all the choices humans will make in all hypothetical situations. After having “learned” all this, then God can make a decree. This is why Herman Bavinck refers to middle knowledge as making God “adopt of posture of watchful waiting. He watches to see what they are going to do.”
Middle knowledge occupies less than a second, if that long, in God’s mind as middle knowledge only represents God as considering all the options available to Him in deciding what world to create. The problem for Molinists is that they can only prove that God had the option of creating any one of a almost infinite number of worlds; not that the great number of worlds gives evidence of man’s free will. Middle knowledge proposes to look into the mind of God as He ponders the world He can create. Obviously, with God there is very little pondering over what to create – God had a plan and implemented that plan without consulting with anyone else; and we see God’s plan unfolding day by day in minute detail as we live out the lives God gave to us.
rhutchin
Molinism does not work with non-Calvinist theologies.
br.d
And Bill Clinton didn’t have X with that woman Monica! :-]
Heather writes, ‘Non-Calvinists believe that God didn’t preplan/cause it to happen, just that He knew it would happen, allowed it to happen, and worked it into His plans, meaning that Adam truly made his own choice (that he had real options to choose between).”
God planned a certain outcome but knew that His plan was unobtainable because He knew that X would happen, so He reworked His plan to include X and went merrily on His way. All this happened before God created the world. Calvinists say God had a plan; non-Calvinists say that God had a plan, but had to rework it because of things He knew were going to happen but was too lazy to accommodate those events in His original plan. Perhaps, Heather means that God really didn’t know that Adam would eat the fruit until He saw Adam eating the fruit and then He had to scramble to rework His plan. Non-Calvinists view God as a bumbling keystone cop.
Then, “Calvinists would have to say that God preplanned it to happen, caused it to happen, and that Adam was simply making the decision that God predetermined he would make (and that God punished him for the choice God made him make). ”
Well, God did make Adam imperfect with limited knowledge, limited understanding, and no experience with Satan and then God puts Adam in a garden and opens the gate so that Satan could enter and deceive Eve in order to get Adam to eat the fruit. I think even Heather could figure out that Adam would truly make his own choice and eat the fruit. Why get upset because God also knew it and had already decided not to protect Adam and Eve from Satan’s deception thereby guaranteeing that Adam would eat the fruit.
rhutchin
God planned a certain outcome but knew that His plan was unobtainable……so He reworked His plan…..etc
br.d
Here is a wonderful example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* language
Here we have Calvin’s god – who while planning a certain outcome – treats the proposition of its obtain-ability *AS-IF* that proposition is TRUE – while knowing it is FALSE
Thus – in the process of knowing it is FALSE – he reworks his plan
Roland are you getting this!!!!!!
If I made this statement about Calvin’s god – you’d be blowing a gasket!! ;-D
br.d writes, “Here we have Calvin’s god – who while planning a certain outcome – treats the proposition of its obtain-ability *AS-IF* that proposition is TRUE – while knowing it is FALSE
Thus – in the process of knowing it is FALSE – he reworks his plan”
LOL!!! I was describing Heather’s view on this.
Roland, you can ignore br.d.
rhutchin
LOL!!! I was describing Heather’s view on this.
Roland, you can ignore br.d.
br.d
That is hilarious!
It looked exactly like something you would concoct! ;-D
br.d writes, “It looked exactly like something you would concoct! ”
That’s what you get for not reading comments within their context.
br.d
It looked exactly like something you would concoct! :-]
rhutchin
That’s what you get for not reading comments within their context.
br.d
That’s what I get – for getting used to all the things you concoct!
All of those attempts to SMUGGLE in “MERE” permission – and this one just looked like one more. :-]
br.d: “That’s what I get – for getting used to all the things you concoct!”
That’s what you get for being sloppy.
br.d
That’s what I get – for getting used to all the things you concoct!”
rhutchin
That’s what you get for being sloppy.
br.d
If expecting that which is typical equates to sloppy! :-]
rhutchin
LOL!!! I was describing Heather’s view on this
Roland, you can ignore br.d.
roland
That’s happened to me with him a few times. He quotes back something I wrote AS IF I’m making the argument when I’m repeating what someone else wrote.
Heather writes, (…Whereas non-Calvinists stick with the real meaning of foreknowing: knowing beforehand. Not preplanning and causing. It’s the Calvinists who deny God’s foreknowledge by changing it into something it isn’t.)
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists define foreknowing as knowing beforehand. Calvinists then explain how God foreknows – God foreknows that which He decrees (preplans and causes). Do non-Calvinists explain how God foreknows? No – it’s a mystery, they say. But they know for certain that God doesn’t know all things just because He preplans and causes them – it’s more mysterious than that.
So, let’s define foreknowing as as knowing beforehand. God foreknew those who would be saved and those who would not be saved (regardless how they were to come to salvation) before He created the world. That’s basic Calvinism, so what is Heather’s problem since she seems to agree with the Calvinists?
rhutchin
Calvinists explain how God foreknows
br.d
Like a good Gnostic should! :-]
rhutchin
God foreknows that which He decrees (preplans and causes).
br.d
I like Calvin’s statement better:
-quote
He foresees ONLY as a consequence of his decree
rhutchin
Do non-Calvinists explain how God foreknows? No – it’s a mystery,
br.d
WHAT????
I suggest you present that silly assertion to Dr. William Lane Craig, and Dr. Alvin Plantinga
Good luck with that! :-]
br.d writes, “I suggest you present that silly assertion to Dr. William Lane Craig, and Dr. Alvin Plantinga ”
LOL!!! Even you don’t know how they explain it.
br.d
I suggest you present that silly assertion to Dr. William Lane Craig, and Dr. Alvin Plantinga ”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Even you don’t know how they explain it.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
I don’t want to accept how they explain it – so I will argue that no one knows how they explain it!
So funny! :-]
br.d writes, ‘I don’t want to accept how they explain it – so I will argue that no one knows how they explain it! ”
You brought them up and you don’t know how they explain omniscience. I am not arguing that no one knows how they explain it; I am arguing that you don’t know how they explain it.
br.d
‘I don’t want to accept how they explain it – so I will argue that no one knows how they explain it! ”
rhutchin
You brought them up and you don’t know how they explain omniscience.
br.d
How many times have I been here!!
He closes his eyes so that he can claim no one is showing him anything :-]
br.d writes, “He closes his eyes so that he can claim no one is showing him anything ”
LOL!!! No, I claim that you are not showing me anything because you don’t know and have nothing to show.
br.d
He closes his eyes so that he can claim no one is showing him anything ”
rhutchin
LOL!!! No, I claim that you are not showing me anything because you don’t know and have nothing to show.
br.d
You are not showing me anything he says – with hands tightly clinched over the eyes
He then says LOL! :-]
br.d writes, “You are not showing me anything he says – with hands tightly clinched over the eyes”
LOL!!! No. Eyes wide open. Nothing to see.
rhutchin
LOL!!! No. Eyes wide open. Nothing to see.
br.d
LOL!!! he said
Nothing to see and nothing to hear – he said
With eyes tightly shut and fingers jammed deep into the ears!
Its all about how the game is played :-]
rhutchin
In this case, br.d refers to Craig and Plantinga without knowing the position they take on omniscience. That’s how he plays the game.
br.d
This would be a good example of Calvinist GNOSIS
In this case knowledge of what is going on inside another person’s brain and what that brain knows.
And knowledge of what the minds of Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga don’t know
And GNOSIS makes perfect sense – when one discovers the constituent role Gnosticism plays in Calvinism’s evolution.
That’s how the Calvinist can lean over Eve’s shoulder and tell her what god said! :-]
rhutchin
God foreknew those who would be saved and those who would not be saved (regardless how they were to come to salvation) before He created the world. That’s basic Calvinism, so what is Heather’s problem since she seems to agree with the Calvinists?
br.d
Does anyone else not see a con-artist at work here!?!? :-]
This is what we lovingly call rhutchin’s dancing boxer routine.
The difference between the Calvinist – and the non-Calvinist is – “MERE” permission – which does not exist in Calvinism.
But which rhutchin is constantly trying to manufacture SEMANTIC FACADES of within his version of Calvinism!
What a hoot! 😀
br.d writes, “The difference between the Calvinist – and the non-Calvinist is – “MERE” permission – which does not exist in Calvinism.”
LOL!!! Through His foreknowledge, God knows those who would be saved and those who would not be saved (regardless how they were to come to salvation) before He created the world. Mere permission never enters the equation.
rhjutchin
LOL!!! Through His foreknowledge, God knows those who would be saved and those who would not be saved (regardless how they were to come to salvation) before He created the world. Mere permission never enters the equation.
br.d
Calvinist strategy #55
As a Calvinist you are to claim that “MERE” permission doesn’t enter into the equation – while most of your posts are be constant attempts at SMUGGLING “MERE” permission back into the system.
Then cross your fingers and hope that no one sees through the ruse! :-]
Heather writes, ‘A human example: A man buys 100 candy bars for 100 people in a room, and he puts them on the table and says “Anyone who wants one can come up and take one.” He’s made it available for all. He paid the price for all. But he gives them the option to accept or reject it. I don’t see why that’s such a difficult concept to grasp.”
That’s easy to grasp. The difficult part is that it requires faith to take a candy bar and no one has faith so no one in the exercise of their “free will” takes a candy bar. Without everyone rejects the candy bar. If everyone had faith, then everyone would take a candy bar.
Then if some take a candy bar and some reject the candy bar, Heather says, “Ah, back to the false Calvinist dichotomy of “Either God saves everyone or God elects certain people to save.” Somewhere, Heather got confused and could not think of a third option – the one she claims is “the biblically correct answer.”
Fromoverhere, Thank you. And I agree with you that “Still others say He knew all possible outcomes, but waited on man to decide which (of many) directions he would go. This third option makes sense of the hundreds of places in Scripture where God says “should have” “would have” “if you had only” “I expected this but you did this”.”
It makes me think of when David was fleeing from Saul and asked God if the people of Keilah would hand him over to Saul if he stayed in the city, and God said they would. So David left the city. God knew where both choices would lead, and could work both into His plans, but He let David choose. This blows the Calvinist idea of “foreknowledge = predetermination” out of the water because God foreknew what would happen if David had made a different decision.
God also tells Saul that He would have established Saul’s kingdom if Saul had been faithful. But Saul wasn’t, so God took the kingdom from him. God foresaw both endings, but let Saul choose which way to go. Either way, God is big enough and smart enough to work His plans out, regardless of what we do. But we have a big effect on the part we play in God’s plans, whether we obey or disobey.
(And I am not reading nor responding to the Calvinists in this thread of comments. There’s no point.)
Blessings to you, Fromoverhere!
Heather writes, “This blows the Calvinist idea of “foreknowledge = predetermination” out of the water because God foreknew what would happen if David had made a different decision.”
This blows the description of God in the Scriptures that attribute to God an infinite understanding of His creation and nullifies the idea that God is omniscient. I guess that makes Heather an Open Theist.
rhutchin
This blows the description of God in the Scriptures that attribute to God an infinite understanding of His creation and nullifies the idea that God is omniscient. I guess that makes Heather an Open Theist.
br.d
No that does not LOGICALLY follow.
“infinite understanding” is simply different language for Middle Knowledge – which according to your argument – is related to the decree in that it serves as content for a POSSIBLE decree. But does not necessitate that decree.
So according to “foreknowledge” as defined in Calvinism – where there is no ACTUAL decree – there is no ACTUAL foreknowledge.
So in such case Middle Knowledge serves as content for a POSSIBLE decree
But in this case that content does not transition to foreknowledge because there is no ACTUAL decree.
However, since Middle knowledge is logically prior to the decree – It is not ruled out.
And therefore neither is omniscience.
Rhuthcin says: “This blows the description of God in the Scriptures that attribute to God an infinite understanding of His creation and nullifies the idea that God is omniscient. I guess that makes Heather an Open Theist.”
I guess you see what you want to see, whatever serves your purpose, no matter what a convoluted, twisted stretch it is.
But no, I am not an open theist. I just give God credit for knowing all the possible combinations of what could happen and how to work it into His plans. I’m sorry Calvinism’s god can’t handle any other factor than what he himself plans and causes. I guess he’s just not that big or smart or powerful or complex or mysterious, like the God of the Bible is.
(Thanks, BR.D., for jumping in and defending me. I’m so done with Rhutchin’s nonsense and games!)
Heather writes, ” I just give God credit for knowing all the possible combinations of what could happen…”
OK. That’s a pre-creation view that you share with Calvinists. Nothing wrong with that.
Then, “…and how to work it into His plans.”
This is where it gets interesting. What does God have to work into His plans? God’s plan is described by Paul in Romans 9, “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,…” Then Ephesians 3, “…the mystery of Christ; which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of his promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,…” Then, we have God’s plans laid out in the prophecies. God’s plans are expressed in His actions. He chooses Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and the remnant of Israel as His children. God chooses Paul to be His apostle to the gentiles. It is God who draws His elect to Christ. God doesn’t have to work anything into His plan. His plan is set; He implements that plan starting with the creation.
Then, “I’m sorry Calvinism’s god can’t handle any other factor than what he himself plans and causes. I guess he’s just not that big or smart or powerful or complex or mysterious, like the God of the Bible is.”
Why would God want to handle any other factor than what he himself plans and causes? His plan reflects His perfect wisdom and any alteration of that plan based on “any other factor” (whatever heather means by that) results in a less wise plan; an imperfect plan.
rhutchin
This is where it gets interesting. What does God have to work into His plans?
br.d
LOGIC tells us the answer to that
Whatever is possible for an omnipotent being is what that omnipotent being has.to work with.
For example:
Calvin’s god who meticulously determines whatsoever impulses will come to pass within the human brain – could determine good and loving impulses to come to pass.
And since the Calvinist knows what has been meticulously determined by simply observing what has come to pass (past tense) then it becomes obvious – Calvin’s god chose to meticulously determine sinful evil impulses to predominantly come to pass.
Either way – in Calvinism – man is not permitted to be the DETERMINER of any whatsoever comes to pass – so man has no say in the matter..
br.d writes, “Whatever is possible for an omnipotent being is what that omnipotent being has.to work with.”
In other words, whatever God wants to do, He does. God creates whatever he needs to accomplish His purpose.
Then, “For example:
Calvin’s god who meticulously determines whatsoever impulses will come to pass within the human brain – could determine good and loving impulses to come to pass.”
God determines whatsoever impulses will come to pass within the human brain by creating people with a corrupt nature inherited from Adam and then withholding faith from people until they hear the gospel and receive faith. In their corrupt nature and without faith, the thoughts of people’s hearts are only evil (God chose to meticulously determine sinful evil impulses to predominantly come to pass. ) and God, within His decree, restrains the evil actions people can do and this to accomplish His purposes. Thus, Joseph’s brothers could not kill Joseph but could sell him.
Then, “Either way – in Calvinism – man is not permitted to be the DETERMINER of any whatsoever comes to pass – so man has no say in the matter.”
Man cooperates with his corrupt nature and willfully seeks to sin – no one voluntarily restrains himself from sin
br.d
Whatever is possible for an omnipotent being is what that omnipotent being has.to work with.”
rhutchin
In other words, whatever God wants to do, He does. God creates whatever he needs to accomplish His purpose.
br.d
Why do we need to always muddy up the waters!
You now must bring in an additional attribute of perfection along with omniscience,
We need to add a perfect being who knows what is LOGICALLY possible and what is not LOGICALLY possible.
And then we can assume that whatever he wants is LOGICALLY coherent with what is possible
And of course
Calvin’s god who meticulously determines whatsoever impulses will come to pass within the human brain – could determine good and loving impulses to come to pass.”
rhutchin
God determines whatsoever impulses will come to pass within the human brain by creating people with a corrupt nature inherited from Adam and then withholding faith from people until they hear the gospel and receive faith.
br.d
FALSE
There you go again – trying to SMUGGLE in “MERE” permission.
*AS-IF* after creating people with certain attributes – Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits people to be/do whatever.
No!
That would not be EXHAUSTIVE divine determinism
rhutchin
God, within His decree, restrains the evil actions people CAN do and this to accomplish His purposes.
br.d
By determining every impulse that CAN come to pass within their brains
Either way – in Calvinism – man is not permitted to be the DETERMINER of any whatsoever comes to pass – so man has no say in the matter.”
rhutchin
Man cooperates with his corrupt nature….
br.d
Which Calvin’s god meticulously determines – every part – and at every instance in time.
rhutchin
and willfully seeks to sin
br,d
Which is determined by impulses which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within man’s brain
rhutchin
– no one voluntarily restrains himself from sin
br.d
In Exhaustive Divine Determinism – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined solely and exclusively by Calvin’s god.
Which leaves ZERO% left over for any man to determine
Which leaves ZERO% left over for man to volunteer
Its LOGICALLY impossible to volunteer that which you have no say in the matter of.
br.d writes, “Why do we need to always muddy up the waters!
You now must bring in an additional attribute of perfection along with omniscience,”
God is a perfect being who is necessarily omniscient (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.). God does not contradict Himself, so no muddying of the waters is possible – unless your intent is to muddy the waters.
Then, “that would not be EXHAUSTIVE divine determinism”
Why not? God determines whatsoever impulses will come to pass and does so exhaustively as nothing escapes His decree.
Then, “There you go again – trying to SMUGGLE in “MERE” permission.
*AS-IF* after creating people with certain attributes – Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits people to be/do whatever.”
LOL!!! Creating people with certain attributes guarantees that they will act in line with those attributes – even as God decreed.
Then, “Either way – in Calvinism – man is not permitted to be the DETERMINER of any whatsoever comes to pass – so man has no say in the matter.””
If a person touches a hot plate, an impulse is sent the brain prompting an impulse to jerk back the hand. When a totally depraved person sees the opportunity for sin, the brain acts on that opportunity. It is natural for a sinner to sin. After the person is born, God does not have to generate various impulses involved in life. A person loves his sin and God does not have to generate sinful impulse to sin even though He determined the impulses to sin would occur by creating a person who was totally depraved.
Then, “Its LOGICALLY impossible to volunteer that which you have no say in the matter of.”
In Romans 2, “Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?” If a person can distinguish the way others behave from the way he behaves, then he has a say in the matter. By that distinction, God can judge him.
br.d
Why do we need to always muddy up the waters!
You now must bring in an additional attribute of perfection along with omnipotence
rhutchin
God does not contradict Himself, so no muddying of the waters is possible – unless your intent is to muddy the waters.
br.d
Congratulations on another wonderful non-sequitur! :-]
And your last statement would not be EXHAUSTIVE divine determinism
rhuthin
Why not?
br.d
Because – for the 1000th time – it implies “MERE” permission :-]
rhutchin
God determines whatsoever impulses will come to pass and does so exhaustively as nothing escapes His decree.
br.d
Now that is a well formulated statement which has no hint of “MERE” permission inferred.
If you had stated it that way – you would have been fine.
But instead – there you go again – trying to SMUGGLE in “MERE” permission.
*AS-IF* after creating people with certain attributes – Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits people to be/do whatever.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Creating people with certain attributes guarantees that they will act in line with those attributes – even as God decreed.
br.d
Not with enough resolution to be EXHAUSTIVE
Determining a person’s attributes does not entail determining every impulse that comes to pass within the brain.
Either way – in Calvinism – man is not permitted to be the DETERMINER of any whatsoever comes to pass – so man has no say in the matter.””
rhutchin
If a person touches a hot plate, an impulse is sent the brain
br.d
Not unless Calvin’s god infallibly decrees that specific impulse.
And every impulse is uniquely different in every part – specifically as Calvin’s god decrees each one to be
rhutchin
When a totally depraved person sees the opportunity for sin, the brain acts on that opportunity.
br.d
Not without Calvin’s god infallibly decreeing a specific impulse in that person’s brain.
No decree = no impulse
And a person being totally depraved is irrelevant to that fact.
Calvin’s god decrees sinful impulses to infallibly come to pass within every Calvinist brain – throughout that Calvinist’s life.
And for specifically designed Calvinists – that includes the impulse to infallibly take the mark of the beast.
rhutchin
It is natural for a sinner to sin.
br.d
But nothing – including sin – is a naturally occurring event in Calvinism – because every movement of nature occurs infallibly – and nature doesn’t have the power to move itself infallibly
rhutchin
After the person is born, God does not have to generate various impulses involved in life.
br.d
But he does have to determine every specific impulse that will come to pass in that person’s brain.
And every impulse is completely unique
The impulses that Calvin’s god determined come to pass within Adolph Hitlers brain were specific to Adolph Hitler
rhutchin
A person loves his sin
br.d
Not without Calvin’s god determining every specific impulse of love – and in every part.
rhutchin
and God does not have to generate sinful impulse to sin even though He determined the impulses to sin would occur by creating a person who was totally depraved.
br.d
Every impulse specifically determined in every part
And every nano-second of it meticulously determined.
That’s why its called EXHAUSTIVE Determinism
And on the topic of volunteering
It is LOGICALLY impossible to volunteer that which you have no say in the matter of.
And since Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – leaving ZERO% un-determined.
It LOGICALLY follows – there is nothing for any man to determine.
Which means Calvin’s god leaves nothing UP TO any man
And you can’t volunteer that which is not UP TO you to volunteer
rhutchin
If a person can distinguish the way others behave from the way he behaves, then he has a say in the matter.
br.d
Well – in Calvinism – the human function of “distinguishing” must be COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
That is called Compatibilistic freedom.
The human mind is NOT free to “distinguish” anything other than what has been determined.
Because that would be Libertarian freedom.
Therefore whatever is “distinguishes” within the human mind – is NOT determined by the human mind – but by Calvin’s god’s mind.
Calvin’s god is the sole and exclusive DETERMINER of all things.
Unless you want to argue that man’s function of “distinguishing” is “MERELY” permitted – and thus Libertarian free? :-]
rhutchin
Why would God want to handle any other factor than what he himself plans and causes? His plan reflects His perfect wisdom and any alteration of that plan based on “any other factor” (whatever heather means by that) results in a less wise plan; an imperfect plan.
roland
Heather’s statement shows she doesn’t understand Calvinism. Non-calvinists seem to think that there other “factors” outside of God. This is why I sometimes think some non-calvinists are really open theist but they just don’t realize what they are saying. I also noticed that many, even Dr. Flowers, argue just like open theists. Non-calvinists will say almost anything just to prove Calvinism is not biblical that they will even sound heretical.
Roland
I’ve been active at SOT101 for a number of years – just as rhutchin has.
And in that period of time – I’ve seen rhutchin make statements that are appeals to things found in both Molinism and Open Theism which I happen to know would be argued against by Calvinists such as Paul Helms, Neil Anderson, and Guillaume Bignon.
So what you are observing there – is not relegated to non-Calvinists alone
From here we would get into rhutchin explaining that his appeals to Molinist/Open-Theist concepts are concepts accepted within Calvinism.
And if that is TRUE for rhutchin – then it can also be TRUE for Dr. Flowers.
br.d
So what you are observing there – is not relegated to non-Calvinists alone
From here we would get into rhutchin explaining that his appeals to Molinist/Open-Theist concepts are concepts accepted within Calvinism.
And if that is TRUE for rhutchin – then it can also be TRUE for Dr. Flowers.
roland
The Westminster Confession of Faith address this in chapter 3 paragraph 2
Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
I know Calvinists do accept the Molinist/open theist argument that God could have knowledge of all possible or hypothetical events but we reject this on the truth that God never realized or actualized those hypotheticals in His decree. I don’t know of any other concept that is accepted by Calvinists besides the one I mentioned. But then again I don’t interact much with Molinist or open theistic literature as I’m just aware of their primary argument about middle knowledge and open theism.
Roland
I know Calvinists do accept the Molinist/open theist argument that God could have knowledge of all possible or hypothetical events but we reject this on the truth that God never realized or actualized those hypotheticals in His decree.
br.d
If you were following some of rhutchin’s posts on this regard – you would find him appealing to what he calls “infinite understanding” which for a Molinist is called “Middle Knowledge” And rhutchin asserts this is USED by Calvin’s god as part of “the council of his will” and thus influences what he will decree.
This is a way to get by APPEARANCE what the Molinist has.
In other words – he uses his “infinite understanding” of what the creature would have done WITHOUT HIM determining it.
In other words – what the creature would have doneGiven Libertarian freedom
And then uses that content of as part of his “infinite understanding” to determined what he will decree the creature do.
This is a strategy for getting a Deterministic SIMULATION of Libertarian freedom
And that’s why I said – it is something Calvinists like Paul Helm’s etc would never agree with.
br.d writes, ‘In other words – he uses his “infinite understanding” of what the creature would have done WITHOUT HIM determining it.
In other words – what the creature would have done Given Libertarian freedom”
No, God understands how His creation responds to Him. Creation responds to God’s actions (or the environment into which God places the creatures) – i.e., God’s decree – using those capabilities with which they were born (and here the element of faith is important). There will always be a reason for a person to choose X over ~X and that reason will derive from the capabilities given to the person at birth. This is what compatibilism says, and if the LFW advocates want to define LFW in this manner, that’s fine. That is what Calvinists have been telling them they have to do. So far, no one has been able to define LFW in a way that distinguishes it from compatibilist freedom (except by limiting God’s capabilities as the Open Theists have done and thereby limit God’s decree).
br.d
‘In other words – he uses his “infinite understanding” of what the creature would have done WITHOUT HIM determining it.
In other words – what the creature would have done Given Libertarian freedom”
rhutchin
No……
br.d
Actually you have made posts exactly to this affect.
The strategy was to produce a Deterministic SIMULATION of Libertarian Freedom
And you know this to be TRUE – because I showed how it was TRUE at the time you made those statements
But if you’ve changed your position and the answer is TRULY No as you say.
Then from now on – your statements on this regard will make it a point of clarity to say
Calvin’s god;s “infinite understanding” of the creature – is his understanding of what he meticulously decrees the creature to be/do.
If you don’t .make that clear – then everyone will know – you are once again using language which makes room for “infinite understanding” of what the creature would Libertarianly freely be/do
br.d writes, “From here we would get into rhutchin explaining that his appeals to Molinist/Open-Theist concepts are concepts accepted within Calvinism.
And if that is TRUE for rhutchin – then it can also be TRUE for Dr. Flowers.”
All non-Calvinist theologies want to differentiate themselves from some elements of Calvinism while accepting other elements. It is not hard to find points of agreement between Calvinist and non-Calvinist theologies. Where there are points of disagreement, the non-Calvinist will argue against the Calvinist theology but rarely argue for an alternative position and where the non-Calvinist does argue an alternative, it is usually saying, “Let’s assume X to me true,” and this because they cannot provide a logical proof/explanation to support their position.
rhutchin
All non-Calvinist theologies want to differentiate themselves from some elements of Calvinism while accepting other elements. It is not hard to find points of agreement between Calvinist and non-Calvinist theologies.
br.d
I knew you would affirm my point!
rhutchin
they cannot provide a logical proof/explanation to support their position.
br.d
If that were TRUE – your posts wouldn’t be so full of non-sequiturs and other LOGICAL fallacies!
No – Calvinist language is not a TRUE vs FALSE language
Calvinist language is an *AS-IF* language
But Calvinists like to call it “Logical” cuz it makes em feel good :-]
Heather:
So many of us have been tired of RH’s round-n-round nonsensical answers. I see you are done now too! And yes your (more biblical) version of God is a God who is able to handle anything, and still win… not one who has to control our very thoughts and actions so He can win.
And let the readers notice that Rhutchin, not me, is the one who thinks it can only be Calvinist predestination or Open Theism. Another Calvinist false dichotomy. And it’s putting God in a box, minimizing His abilities and sovereign power. Calvinists say they uphold God’s sovereign power, but they actually reduce it, defining it by their own ideas of how He has to act in order to be God. And defining/limiting God based on human ideas makes Calvinism a very “man-centered” theology.
Heather writes, “And let the readers notice that Rhutchin, not me, is the one who thinks it can only be Calvinist predestination or Open Theism.”
The options are (1) God is omniscient and (2) Open theism. If there is another option, you can tell us. It is God’s omniscience that leads to the truth of predestination clearly described in the Scriptures (and included in Calvinist theology).
Then, “it’s putting God in a box, minimizing His abilities and sovereign power.”
God is what He is – omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign, all wise, etc.
Then, “…defining/limiting God based on human ideas makes Calvinism a very “man-centered” theology.”
Defining/limiting God based on the Scriptural description of God makes Calvinism a very “God-centered” theology.
rhutchin
The options are (1) God is omniscient and (2) Open theism
br.d
And every Open Theist is going to agree with that!
If it were as cut and dry as that – there wouldn’t be very many Open Theists in the world
The options are (1) Calvinist and (2) Alien from the planet Gliptal ;-D
br.d writes, “The options are (1) Calvinist and (2) Alien from the planet Gliptal.”
The options are (1) Calvinist, and (2) not-Calvinist. Do we know whether the Alien from the planet Gliptal is Calvinist?
rhutchin
Do we know whether the Alien from the planet Gliptal is Calvinist?
br.d
Yes if every impulse that comes to pass within their brains is infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world! :-]
BR.D.: “This is a way to get by APPEARANCE what the Molinist has.
In other words – he uses his “infinite understanding” of what the creature would have done WITHOUT HIM determining it.
In other words – what the creature would have done Given Libertarian freedom. And then uses that content of as part of his “infinite understanding” to determined what he will decree the creature do.”
The mental/word gymnastics Calvinists have to go through to make their theology sound biblical (and to hide their contradictions, loopholes, problematic areas, etc.) is amazing! It’s been interesting to watch it demonstrated here time and time again by the likes of Rhutchin and others. Calvinists must think they are so highly intelligent to be able to spout off such lofty ideas and complicated/convoluted reasoning, but it’s really just Lewis Carroll-type nonsense. Curiouser and curiouser!
Heather
Its really just Lewis Carroll-type nonsense. Curiouser and curiouser!
br.d
I’m not familiar with this Heather.
Can you point me to what this is?
Heather
The mental/word gymnastics Calvinists have to go through to make their theology sound biblical (and to hide their contradictions, loopholes, problematic areas, etc.) is amazing! It’s been interesting to watch it demonstrated here time and time again by the likes of Rhutchin and others. Calvinists must think they are so highly intelligent to be able to spout off such lofty ideas and complicated/convoluted reasoning, but it’s really just Lewis Carroll-type nonsense. Curiouser and curiouser!
roland
Calvinism is not as complicated as you think it is.
Can you give an example of where our hidden contradictions are exposed?
Can you give an example of our complicated/convoluted reasoning?
You wrote that “it demonstrated here time and time again,” so you should have some examples.
BR.D.: “Heather: ‘It’s really just Lewis Carroll-type nonsense. Curiouser and curiouser!’ Br.d.: ‘I’m not familiar with this Heather.
Can you point me to what this is?'”
Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland. I’m sure you know the story, but Wonderland (a dream world) is full of fantastical, upside-down nonsense, which seems to make sense to the fantasy people in Wonderland, but which Alice rightly recognizes as nonsense. Even their idea of justice is a mockery, but to them it makes perfect sense because they can’t see how wrong they are, operating by their own made-up, illogical rules and “reasoning,” which can be changed to suit their circumstances. To me, the Calvinist world is like Wonderland, where up is down, down is up, good is bad, injustice is justice, there is no real logical reasoning behind anything, etc. But they can’t see it. They think they are right-side up when they are really upside-down. They think they make sense when they don’t. And “curiouser and curiouser” is a line Alice uses as she learns more about how odd the people in Wonderland are.
And Roland asks: “Can you give an example of where our hidden contradictions are exposed? Can you give an example of our complicated/convoluted reasoning? You wrote that “it demonstrated here time and time again,” so you should have some examples.”
No. I’ve tried. But Calvinists insist on defining their contradictions and convoluted ideas as mere “mysteries” that we can’t fully understand but just have to accept. (Aren’t you the one who insisted that you won’t operate by logic anyway when it comes to theology? Very Wonderland-y!) They will explain away any horrible/unjust/difficult thing in their theology with “God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants. Who are you to talk back to Him?” When Calvinists are so hardened in Calvinism that they think that God preplans/causes sin for His pleasure and glory and that it glorifies Him to predestine people to hell then they are probably beyond hope. They have their golden cows and won’t be swayed from worshipping them. And asking non-Calvinists to provide examples (after we already have) is just so the Calvinist can deny it, attack it, and spin their deceptions, trying to defend their golden cows. There’s no point. Jesus Himself warned to not throw pearls before swine because they will just trample them and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Do you know who He had the most trouble with on earth? The Pharisees and teachers of the law. The lofty, highly educated, religious elite who thought they knew it all. But they were so blinded by their own “intelligence” that they couldn’t see the Savior, the Truth, when He was standing right in front of them.)
Good day to you! (And if the Calvinists here get a chance, they should read Alice in Wonderland. They might feel right at home in Wonderland.)
AH! I see!
Thank you for explaining that.
On the issue of contradictions in Calvinism – you have good insight – where you say that in Calvinism up is down, right is left, good is evil, and true is false.
The way I see this manifest with Calvinists follows the same model you find in false-advertising language. Its the difference between EXPLICIT language vs INFERENTIAL language.
Every adult knows that EXPLICIT statements involve risk.
Take for example, a politician running for the office of Governor – where half of his voters are staunchly pro-choice, and half of his voters are staunchly pro-life. Both parties want an EXPLICIT statement from him concerning his position. He does not dare make such a statement because he knows he will alienate a large percentage of potential voters. So what he does is hire a “public relations” person.
The public relations person’s job is to craft statements that are designed to APPEAR as explicit statements but really are not. He crafts statements that are full of IMPLICATURES.
Those voters who are pro-choice interpret his statement as a positive in their position, while the pro-life voters interpret the same exact statements as a positive in their position.
So every politician knows that if he wants to survive in that world – he has to minimize the use of EXPLICIT statements and maximize the use of INFERENTIAL language.
And Calvinists follow the exact same Language model.
For every one EXPLICIT statement in which [X] = TRUE they will make 1000 INFERENTIAL statements designed INFER [X] = FALSE
Then there is what Linguists call INSIDER language.
INSIDER language occurs – when people within a guild or group know what someone within the group is saying using INFERENTIAL language. The person makes a statement which INFERS [X] is FALSE. And the other people within that group – who are INSIDERS – know this statement really means [X] = TRUE. But OUTSIDERS are mislead by the language.
This is a primary strategy used by Calvinists to avoid contradiction. If you question them about a statement – they will do a tap-dance around the meanings of words. This is a clear indicator of a reliance upon INFERENTIAL language.
Here is an example – EXPLICIT statement A:
Calvin’s god determines 100% of everything in every part.
With this statement we have [X] = TRUE
Now watch John Calvin craft an INFERENTIAL statement in regard to that
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, AS THOUGH nothing were determined about any part.”
Notice how this statement does not present an EXPLICIT contradiction.
If he crafted this as the EXPLICIT statement:
“Nothing is determined in any part” – that would be a clear contradiction.
And Calvin is smart enough to not put himself in that position.
So here is what we end up with
[X] is TRUE *AS-IF* [X] is FALSE
In other words – the Calvinist holds that [X] is TRUE
But he treats [X] *AS-IF* it is false
Here is another example:
John Calvin
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.”
Here Calvin knows that where every event is predestined – events don’t just happen one way or another. Calvin is smart enough to realize that an event be “Predestined” and left OPEN at the same time. That is an EXPLICIT contradiction.
So he once again – he holds [X] as TRUE – where [X] is the fact that events are not OPEN but rather predestined. Yes he treats [X] *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
This is a strategy for avoiding contradiction.
You hold something to be TRUE – while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE
And this is exemplified constantly in Calvinist language.
He will make one EXPLICIT statement – [X] = TRUE
He will follow that with 1000 INFERENTIAL statements – [X] = FALSE
This serves as a strategy for have things both ways – without EXPLICIT contradictions.
Heather writes, ‘No. I’ve tried. But Calvinists insist on defining their contradictions and convoluted ideas as mere “mysteries” that we can’t fully understand but just have to accept.”
You have offered examples that demonstrate your unique method of explaining Scripture. You have been offered alternative explanations, by Calvinists, that accurately reflect what the Scriptures say. Not appeals to mystery.
Then, ‘When Calvinists are so hardened in Calvinism that they think that God preplans/causes sin for His pleasure and glory and that it glorifies Him to predestine people to hell then they are probably beyond hope. ”
Even you deny being Open Theist, so you must believe that God knows all future events perfectly and can, with His omnipotent power produce any outcome He wants. As God exercises absolute control over His creation, all that happens must be purposeful and consistent with God’s perfect wisdom. Everything must glorify God or be purposeless. Maybe, you are a secret Open Theist.
rhutchin
You have been offered alternative explanations, by Calvinists, that accurately reflect what the Scriptures say.
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
You have been offered explanations which the Calvinist mind has been conditioned to assume Calvinistic presuppositions – i.e. Exhaustive Determinism.
1234
FROMOVERHERE wrote: “But in Calvinism, yesterday’s abortion was what God wanted or it would not have happened”. “Simple question to you: Were yesterday’s abortions in your city what God wanted”?
The answer is Yes, though what God conceived for men to do was written is His Law and in His precepts which are found in the Bible, and everything is righteous and virtuous, now use the negative logic, I ask you, If God hadn’t wanted this abortion to happen do you think it would ever have happened? And as evil as it is, the abortion was no more evil than the death of Jesus, which was the worst sin ever committed on earth and I ask you who did plan this death and who controlled everything and everybody to fulfil His plan?
Filemon,
Do you have kids? You dont want your children to sin, but they have the freedom to do so.
Your question here shows that you are reading the Bible with a pre-disposed idea that become MORE important than the message of the Bible.
“If God hadn’t wanted this abortion to happen do you think it would ever have happened?”
What? How silly can this be? That means that all of the hundreds or thousands of times in Scripture were God told people NOT to do something….and they did it …. He really actually (wink, wink) wanted them to do it!!
What a conflicted theology! You will never really know what God wants since He tells you one thing and makes you do another.
You used the worn-out, overused example of the cross to then declare that all evil for all time was done by God. Just unbelievable. There is no connection. You only read that example / connection from the Reformed books.
Filemon asked, “I ask you, If God hadn’t wanted this abortion to happen do you think it would ever have happened?”
Even FOH knows that God is always present at every abortion and has the power to stop any abortion at any time. It is God’s choice to have the abortion continue and because God chooses for the abortion to continue, we say that the abortion was God’s will. Calvinists say that God made this decision before He created the world so that it was part of His decree to create.
Filemon and Rhutchin, Wow! If I was walking next to you right now, I’d be stepping aside, afraid that the earth would open up and swallow you both whole.
Heather,
They are just following Calvinistic deterministic theology to its logical end.
They color it in fancy talk “God knows His creation…” “He controls everything or He controls nothing” (wherever that stupid idea came from!) but really, yes, they are proclaiming (Good News!) that God is the origin, designer, and delighter in all of the evil of this world.
Mysteriously He does this all without sinning, and from a basis of “God is love” but hey….. He decrees “whatsoever comes to pass” (as our creeds and confessions tell us!) so it must be so!
More confessions, creeds, and councils please! Mary-worshipping Augustine figured this out for us….. so just follow him!
The difficulty you have which blocks your understanding is a philosophical problem, you confuse God’s sovereignty with causality, and they are very different things. I never said that God caused the abortion; He doesn’t force anybody to do anything, however He controls everything, because everything that happens, happens of necessity and this is the way God knows the future, and leads everybody to do His will.
My last question, please tell me how the complete process of salvation is in your view; in my view it is the following:
1. We have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God to hear the message, to receive God’s Grace, which drive us to repentance and give us faith to obey and accept Jesus;
2. And clearly we received God’s Grace because we have been predestined and not because He knew we would obey and accept Jesus, this is the main mistake;
A quote from Leibniz:
“The nature of an individual substance or of a complete being is to have a notion so complete that it is sufficient to contain and to allow us to deduce from it all the predicates of the subject to which this notion is attributed”; it means all predicates true of its past, present, and future.
By the way, Augustine was a genius, he wrote wonderful books, the best ones are the books about “faith”, and “City of God” is a classic book, he made mistakes like everybody but he was inspired by God like Luther who “adored” Mary and wrote a book about it; the apostles made mistakes, only Christ was perfect.
Filemon:
What?
Reformed position: “He decrees whatsoever comes to pass.” (Decrees, makes happen, delights in, causes…for His pleasure). Just own it.
I cannot even understand what you are trying to say.
FOH writes, ‘Reformed position: “He decrees whatsoever comes to pass.” (Decrees, makes happen, delights in, causes…for His pleasure). Just own it.”
Just as Ephesians tells us, “God works all things according to the counsel of his will,” Calvinists are willing to own it because God said it.
rhutchin
God works all things according to the counsel of his will,” Calvinists are willing to own it because God said it.
br.d
But not without a necessary caveat
We own it while going about our office *AS-IF* it isn’t TRUE in every part! ;-D
brdmod writes, “But not without a necessary caveat
We own it while going about our office *AS-IF* it isn’t TRUE in every part! ”
No caveat required just because you say so. If the Scriptures say that God works all things according to the counsel of his will, then everyone should own it and go about their office knowing that it is true. What purpose or advantage is there to not believing the Scriptures?
Roland
You confuse God’s sovereignty with causality
br.d
Actually Heather has it correct
CAUSAL DETERMINISM is that unique aspect of Calvinism which sets it apart from all other Christian theologies
Dr. James N. Anderson, of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC explains:
-quote
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to DIVINE DETERMINISM
Take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold and may be expressed as the following:
“For every event [E], god decided that [E] should happen and that decision alone was the ultimate sufficient CAUSEof [E].”
Sometimes called UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM
Sometimes called Theological Determinism
Sometimes called Exhaustive Divine Determinism
Causal Determinism is the thesis that all events which come to pass – are CAUSED by antecedent events determined from the remote past.
Mankind has no control over the past – therefore in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) man has no say in the matter of anything that will come to pass – including the impulses which come to pass within his brain.
And his perception of TRUE from FALSE for every proposition is also solely and exclusively determined by a mind external to himself.
Accordingly his brain is NOT PERMITTED the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
That’s why Calvin teaches his disciples to -quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
brdmod writes, “Mankind has no control over the past – therefore in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) man has no say in the matter of anything that will come to pass – including the impulses which come to pass within his brain.”
This is because it was God who created the world and in whom all people live and move and have being. As Paul explained in Romans 9, “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,” Paul encouraged believers telling them, “God who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.” We have great confidence that God has ordained all things for His purposes and that He will accomplish His purpose.
br.d
“Mankind has no control over the past – therefore in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) man has no say in the matter of anything that will come to pass – including the impulses which come to pass within his brain.”
rhutchin
This is because it was God who created the world and in whom all people live and move and have being.
br.d
The is an example of Calvinist thinking!
Considering the fact that Calvin’s god doesn’t have the power to alter the past himself – because he would be altering what he infallibly decreed – and as such would be falsifying himself.
Given that is the case – to expect any creature to have the power to alter the past is pretty silly! :-]
brdmod writes, “Considering the fact that Calvin’s god doesn’t have the power to alter the past himself – because he would be altering what he infallibly decreed – and as such would be falsifying himself.
Given that is the case – to expect any creature to have the power to alter the past is pretty silly!”
That’s fine. Now address the part where you write, “therefore in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) man has no say in the matter of anything that will come to pass.” The past is not the issue; the future is.
rhutchin
That’s fine. Now address the part where you write, “therefore in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) man has no say in the matter of anything that will come to pass.
br.d
Well you tell me what infallible decree at the foundation of the world man had a say in the matter of – and we can go from there :-]
rhutchin: “Now address the part where you write, “therefore in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) man has no say in the matter of anything that will come to pass.”
br.d: “Well you tell me what infallible decree at the foundation of the world man had a say in the matter of – and we can go from there”
God’s infallible decree accurately incorporates the willful choices of people in bringing about future events. Had any person chosen contrary to their willful desires, the decree would have been falsified. Without Judas, Christ would not have been crucified. Judas had a necessary role in the crucifixion of Jesus and thereby had a say in the matter – and is called the son of perdition because of that..
rhutchin
God’s infallible decree accurately incorporates the willful choices of people
br.d
The willful choices which he does not determine *FOR* people – before they exist?
There goes Theological Determinism! :-]
Thanks for the reply.
brdmod wrote:
Causal Determinism is the thesis that all events which come to pass – are CAUSED by antecedent events determined from the remote past.
Roland wrote: Yes, that is biblical divine determinism. God has caused all things that have come to pass. I also believe that there are other causes but God is the primary cause.
brdmod wrote:
Mankind has no control over the past – therefore in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) man has no say in the matter of anything that will come to pass – including the impulses which come to pass within his brain.
Roland wrote: Ultimately we do not have control over the past. But this is not to say that we go about as robots. That’s why it can be frustrating with non-Calvinists because they tell us that we should not care about anything. That’s not how we as Calvinists live. We believe in obeying God, also while believing that God is in control of everything.
Philippians 1:3-6 3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;
As Calvinists, we live as Paul did. These verses teach us that Paul prays for the Philippians knowing that what God started in them, God will complete. Non-Calvinists come to the conclusion that there’s no need to prayer if God is going to complete what He has done. For Calvinists, this gives us all the reasons to pray, gratitude, joy, seeking God’s favor in prayer, asking that our actions be conformed to His will, etc.
Philippians 2:12-13 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Carefully read these verses. The Philippians are told by Paul to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Why are they to work out their salvation? Because “it is God who works in you both to WILL and to do for His GOOD PLEASURE.” As Calvinist Christians, we are only doing what God is working in us so that we make work it out. The implications of these are huge for the Christians life. Christians who claim to have libertarian freewill cannot embrace this truth. According to them, we are free from anything, which is why I don’t understand why libertarian freewill proponents would pray to God for salvation? You are asking God to do something you don’t believe He can do.
brdmod wrote:
And his perception of TRUE from FALSE for every proposition is also solely and exclusively determined by a mind external to himself.
Accordingly his brain is NOT PERMITTED the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
That’s why Calvin teaches his disciples to -quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Roland wrote: Our brains are permitted the epistemic function of determining true from false. Again, we make decisions, we exercise our wills, we know things, we are not robots as you seem to be implying. Calvin’s correct because that’s how we see this truth in the Bible just look at the verses from Philippians.
Exodus 1235:36 35 Now the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, and they had asked from the Egyptians articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing. 36 And the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.
Carefully look at these verses. The children Israel asked the Egyptians for silver, gold, and clothing but verse 36 tells us that the Lord gave the Israelites favor with the Egyptians so they granted them the request. Can you see how God operates and interacts with His creation? He granted the favor but the Israelites asked for the articles. God is the primary cause of Israel receiving the Egyptians articles. The text doesn’t even tell us if the Israelites knew what God had done! God was secretly operating behind the Israelites actions!
I cannot understand why this is so difficult for non-Calvinists to understand? This is just a plain, simple reading of the text. Calvinists draw their doctrine from the Bible yet we get accused all the time of importing and forcing our theology onto the Bible.
Living the Christian life as a Calvinist has greatly enrich it for me. I can seek to follow Christ with all my heart, soul, mind, and actions knowing that God is working in me in order to complete His work and conform me to Christ’s image.
Romans 8:28-30
28 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. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
God predestined Christians to be conformed to the image of His Son. The non-Calvinist says, “there’s no reason to pray, God already predestined it.” Paul wrote to the Philippians that he prayed for them knowing that God was working in them. I will follow Paul over any non-Calvinist any day.
Thanks for reading.
Roland
Yes, that is biblical divine determinism. God has caused all things that have come to pass. I also believe that there are other causes but God is the primary cause.
brd.
So now you are contradicting your statement to Heather.
But we’ve been talking about DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS haven’t we? :-]
Roland
Ultimately we do not have control over the past.
br.d
Seriously Roland!
More like *ABSOLUTELY* you do not have control over the past.
Have you asked yourself why you have to resort to hedging language?
What is preventing you from speaking the TRUTH?
Roland
But this is not to say that we go about as robots.
br.d
Oh really?
What percentage of whatsoever impulses come to pass within your brain were not determined by an external mind?
But I already know you’ll evade that question just like the others.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why you need to evade probing questions?
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”
(The Doctrine of Divine Decree)
Now tell me that’s not robotic functionality! :-]
Roland
We believe in obeying God
br.d
Well – Jehovah’s Witness believe certain things also – but does that make those things TRUE?
Question:
In Calvinism – are you ever permitted to disobey an infallible decree?
Answer: NEVER!
Therefore there is no such thing as creaturely disobedience in Calvinism
So how is that not DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS?
And this is again why Calvin instructs you to
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Did you notice – that is exactly what you are doing?
Treating the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
Have you ever asked yourself why DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS is needed in Calvinism?
Roland
As Calvinists, we live as Paul did.
br.d
And you do that while Calvinism tells you – that you have NO CERTAINTY that that is true.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
But the Lord……instills into their minds such a SENSE of his goodness as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes)
-quote
“He ILLUMINES them for a time to partake of it – and then STRIKES them with even greater blindness” (Institutes)
Roland
Our brains are permitted the epistemic function of determining true from false.
br.d
Oh really?
There goes the doctrine of infallible decrees! :-]
Have you ever thought about why the Calvinist needs to be DOUBLE-MINDED about that?
Roland
we make decisions, we exercise our wills,
br.d
Not in Calvinism you don’t
In Calvinism – every impulse – every perception – every conceptions – is solely and exclusively determined by an external mind.
Unless you want to deny the doctrine of infallible decrees :-]
Have you ever asked yourself why the Calvinist is DOUBLE-MINDED about that?
Roland
we know things,
br.d
Not in Calvinism
That would require you making a choice between TRUE and FALSE -without that choice being determined for you.
And once again you have to deny the infallible decrees
Which of course is DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
Roland
Carefully look at these verses….
br.d
Have you noticed that you post verses from the bible – while I post quotes from Calvin and Calvinist scholars and then ask you how you reconcile them – and you evade every question?
Perhaps you’ll ask yourself – why that is the pattern here? :-]
Thanks for the reply.
br.d wrote:
Have you noticed that you post verses from the bible – while I post quotes from Calvin and Calvinist scholars and then ask you how you reconcile them – and you evade every question?
Perhaps you’ll ask yourself – why that is the pattern here? :-]
Roland wrote: I’m not trying to evade your questions. If you want me to answer something ask me. Sometimes by the way you write I cannot tell if you are asking a question or making a rhetorical question. I will say that if you want me to reconcile everything about John Calvin and Calvinist scholars with the Bible, I can’t. I am not familiar enough with Calvin and Calvinistic scholars to know what exactly they are saying in your quotes. I would like to have some context. Also, I quote you the Bible because it is my source of authority.
A lot of times I don’t understand what you are getting at. I really don’t get it. If you want to ask me something, do me a favor ask me a few questions at a time please. Thanks
Roland
I’m not trying to evade your questions. If you want me to answer something ask me.
br.d
Which is what I ‘ve done how many times now?? :-]
Roland
Sometimes by the way you write I cannot tell if you are asking a question or making a rhetorical question.
br.d
Well – I started asking straight out questions to you along with quotes from John Calvin like the following
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal GOOD PLEASURE of god……….they are not found, but MADE worthy of destruction
Are you at peace with what Calvin’s god has made according to his good pleasure?
This was one of a dozen questions you simply ignored.
After a number of such questions – I decided I might just as well provide the LOGICAL answer.
Roland
I will say that if you want me to reconcile everything about John Calvin and Calvinist scholars with the Bible, I can’t. I am not familiar enough with Calvin and Calvinistic scholars to know what exactly they are saying in your quotes.
br.d
Ok then – it follows – you are in no place to speak with authority on whether or not Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.
It would have been beneficial if you had alluded to that in the first place rather than arguing the opposite.
Roland
I would like to have some context. Also, I quote you the Bible because it is my source of authority.
br.d
Yes but only as you read it through the interpretative lens of Calvinism – since you claim to be a Calvinist.
Surely – you understand that Calvinism has its own unique interpretation of scripture????
Anyone who calls themselves a Calvinist – is claiming to follow the Reformed tradition of interpretation.
And if you don’t know what Calvin’s Calvinism is – then you should really be calling yourself a semi-Calvinist.
To call yourself a Calvinist is going to be somewhat misleading.
Roland
A lot of times I don’t understand what you are getting at. I really don’t get it. If you want to ask me something, do me a favor ask me a few questions at a time please. Thanks
br.d
If that is the case – then please let me know what you are uncertain about concerning any given statement or question.
And we can address them one at a time.
Thanks for the reply brd.
brd.
So now you are contradicting your statement to Heather.
But we’ve been talking about DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS haven’t we? :-
Roland wrote: What I mean by God being the ultimate, primary, or first cause, is that I believe Scripture teaches us that God can be the first cause in a chain of causes. We would both agree that God is good. We probably disagree that God controls good as well as evil. I believe that God controls evil but He is not evil as Scripture teaches. As an example, in Isaiah 10, God sends the Assyrians even though they did not think to do so, God has control over them. However, also in Isaiah 10, the Assyrian is said that it is in his heart to destroy. While God can be the primary cause of the Assyrians’s destruction of another nation, there are secondary causes as work as well. Such as the intent the Assyrians have in their heart to destroy. That’s what I mean. Hopefully this helps as I try not to speak in double-mindedness.
br.d
Seriously Roland!
More like *ABSOLUTELY* you do not have control over the past.
Have you asked yourself why you have to resort to hedging language?
What is preventing you from speaking the TRUTH?
Roland wrote: I don’t understand what you mean. I don’t know how I have to resort to hedging language? In what sense am I not speaking the TRUTH? I don’t believe I have lied to anyone on this discussion, I’ve tried to be honest.
br.d
Oh really?
What percentage of whatsoever impulses come to pass within your brain were not determined by an external mind?
Roland wrote: I think I’ve addressed this with you before. Calvinists do not believe we are mere robots. The Bible tells us that God determined before hand that Jesus would be crucified by evil men, Acts 4:27-28. At the same time, it also tells us that these men made decisions, exercised their wills, and acted, even though God had determined this beforehand. The Bible teaches us these truths, as a Calvinist I accept what the Bible teaches us about God’s determination and human action. There is no percentage of impulses, we are not robots, we think, we act, we feel, we choose, but yet God has predetermined all these things. I won’t address this point anymore. You believe Calvinists teach we are robots, I told you we don’t, there is nothing further to discuss, we disagree.
brd. wrote
“God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”
(The Doctrine of Divine Decree)
Roland wrote: I’ve never heard of this guy, never read his book or whatever source it is you are quoting. But I disagree with him, I don’t believe God merely programmed us. Not my position.
br.d
Well – Jehovah’s Witness believe certain things also – but does that make those things TRUE?
Question:
In Calvinism – are you ever permitted to disobey an infallible decree?
Answer: NEVER!
Therefore there is no such thing as creaturely disobedience in Calvinism
So how is that not DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS?
Roland wrote: First, Calvinists do not claim to know all of God’s infallible decrees. We do not have access to the mind of God, only what He has revealed in Scripture. Again, this is a doctrine that Calvinists do not hold to but you insist that we do, I am talking about knowing infallible decrees. You seem to think because Calvinists believe God has infallibly decreed everything that comes to pass, we should know what those decrees are. We don’t. I don’t believe we can disobey something that we are ignorant of or lack knowledge of. In Calvinism there is creaturely disobedience because the Bible tells us so.
Regarding the Jehovah’s witnesses, I don’t see how that is relevant to our discussion. Just because a group or person believes something doesn’t make it true. When have I ever used that as a standard of truthfulness?
brd. wrote:
And this is again why Calvin instructs you to
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Roland wrote: First, I don’t see the relevance of this. I see nothing wrong with living as nothing is determined in any part yet it is determined. In Acts 17, Paul said that it is in God that we live, move, and have our being. All of our lives are in God. Do I need to live as if all of my life, moving, and being are in God. I should. But do I always? Honestly no. The Bible also says that in Christ all things consist, Colossians 1:17. Do you live in this manner, always recognizing that in Christ all things consist? I can honestly say no even though I should. I don’t see how Calvin’s quote is erroneous. I understand what you are saying. It sounds as if you are saying that Calvin is contradicting his own beliefs about the Bible.
br.d
And you do that while Calvinism tells you – that you have NO CERTAINTY that that is true.
Roland wrote: I don’t believe Calvinism teaches the we can no certainty about the things of God. We can have certainty.
brd. wrote
John Calvin explains:
-quote
But the Lord……instills into their minds such a SENSE of his goodness as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes)
-quote
“He ILLUMINES them for a time to partake of it – and then STRIKES them with even greater blindness” (Institutes)
Roland wrote: You quote Calvin a lot. I have to know, are these quotes that you have read from Calvin? Have you read through the Institutes of the Christian Religion? Are these quotes from a website? I ask because I believe you would have to read a lot of Calvin in order to quote him so much. So, I’m assuming you have read a lot of Calvin, or am I wrong?
Also, in your response, you have a lot of misrepresentations of Calvinism. I don’t believe you are sincere in your interactions with Calvinism. You sound very snarky in your comments. I believe that you hate Calvinists and Calvinism.
Have you read any Reformed literature? Have ever read a Reformed confession with your Bible to try to understand where we are coming from? I’m really curious.
br.d wrote:
Have you noticed that you post verses from the bible – while I post quotes from Calvin and Calvinist scholars and then ask you how you reconcile them – and you evade every question?
Perhaps you’ll ask yourself – why that is the pattern here? :-]
Roland wrote: Yes, I am aware that I posts Bible verses, it is my ultimate authority. I don’t remember you asking me to reconcile Calvin’s quotes with Scripture. I don’t remember evading the questions. But, if you want me to reconcile Calvin’s quotes and Scripture, then I need to know where you are quoting Calvin from and what Scripture you want me to reconcile it with. I would like to read Calvin in context as I believe it is unfair to ask somebody to reconcile something without the context. Thanks for reading.
Roland
We have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees ONLY in consequence of his decree
Therefore what you call “foreknowledge” is actually the the infallible decree
Did you notice how you omitted that fact!
I wonder why??? :-]
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees ONLY in consequence of his decree
Therefore what you call “foreknowledge” is actually the the infallible decree
Did you notice how you omitted that fact!
I wonder why??? :-]
Roland wrote: It must have been by mistake. I don’t deny God’s infallible decree.
Fromoverhere,
It never ceases to amaze me that Calvinists cannot see how blasphemous and unscriptural their theology is. I’ve read one Calvinist before who claimed that since God is love and since God (Calvinism’s god) causes all things, even wars and abuse and murders, then therefore we have to view wars, abuse, and murders as acts of God’s love, evidence of His love.
Absolutely mind-blowing how backwards their thinking is and hardened their hearts are!
Just today, I read a comment from a Calvinist that was actually news to me, something I never heard a Calvinist say before which kicks it up a notch. (I think some Calvinists try their best to hide the bad parts of their theology, but some flaunt it, trying to outdo other Calvinists by being as “hard core” as they can.) It was on an oldreddit thread about the age of accountability, and the Calvinist said this:
“Sin is transgression against God’s law. God has not given Himself any law that says He cannot do these things, therefore it is not sin for Him to do them.”
Wow! Just wow! He’s claiming that God can actively do any evil thing He wants but it’s okay … because He didn’t tell Himself that He couldn’t do it. Therefore, nothing is sin for God. What then is left to differentiate God from Satan, if God can do everything Satan does and it’s okay?
And in response to a comment from someone else (“God wouldn’t be very just if he sent people to hell that weren’t given the choice or a way to sanctify.”), he said, “God is the one who dictates what is just. Just because it doesn’t seem just to me (or indeed, to ANY human) says nothing about whether it is just.”
Once again … Wow! So God can do anything that appears wrong or evil or unjust … because it’s not unjust in His eyes, only in ours. Erasing all the lines between God and Satan, between good and evil, just leaves you with Satan for a god. But this is the Calvinist god. Horrifying! And even more horrifying that this theology is spreading like wildfire and that so many people in the congregation don’t know what they’re buying into.
This article is absolutely relevant and makes sense to me!!.. so interesting the mud slinging of calvinist on this site and the accusations they make seem nonsensical to me… yet there eventual transparency helps which is brought out by the knowledgeable people on this blog which helps tremendously.. thank you… I knew that i knew that i knew God in NO Way wanted me to cling to either calvinism or arminianism… I’m choosing to trust the Holy Spirit to guide me into truth not a man made system.
John 16:13 NASB95 — “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
And honestly it does not seem genuine in my opinion to join the masses to voice discontent over what is…. if i ever became sooooo knowledgeable to become a calvinist and understand God’s omnipresence, omniscience, actually all of God’s attributes and believe He purposely decrees (all) things, that at (every) moment in time nothing came to pass without His devine decree for His glory… Then that is just who i worship, so why question His good plan or try to convince/persuade anyone….. why at the very least complain to other humans or even imply we’re not good Bereans i don’t agree.. a plea against a devine decree from eternity past is simply mute…
To me it seems a calvinist needs to have every aspect of what God knows controlled by their understanding of our temporal world & linear time line… at least that is how it seems to me…
Hey Reggie, thanks for chiming in.
Reggie wrote:
To me it seems a calvinist needs to have every aspect of what God knows controlled by their understanding of our temporal world & linear time line… at least that is how it seems to me
Roland wrote: As a Calvinist, I can say that we do not need to have every aspect of what God knows controlled by our understanding of our temporal world and linear time line. There is a broad range of Calvinist and what we believe. I lean more on the moderate side of Calvinism. There is a sense of mystery in Calvinism because the Bible is not an exhaustive revelation. It doesn’t tells us everything about everyone and every event. Calvinists, I am one, do not believe we can understand everything about God, we believe He is incomprehensible. We only know what God has made known through two means: Scripture and creation. At least that is what Psalm 19 tells us.
Hi Roland. I don’t agree with you and clearly there are very insightful rebuttals to your calvinist understanding of the Scriptures (maybe just simply read God’s Word period) the roots of calvinism to me seem to stop short at devine determinism… Hence this sight, because we as non calvinist ie with freedom of choice believe this system is inaccurate… also no one here would call themselves followers of Leighton fyi… are you trying to start another ism😳 unfortunately for myself most often i can only respond via swipe text, so I’m not going to try and debate/persuade you, but many here are willing and much much more qualified than me just drop your preconceived notions first. But really in the end it’s only God’s Word that matters and i don’t trust calvinism to be the interpretation I’d want to stake my relationship with the Creator of the universe on simply falls short and does injustice to a Holy God🐸 Forever Rely on God not “c”alvinism. If your here on this sight I’m thinking you actually have a curiosity to look outside what you’ve been taught🤔 in Him alone is where we can stand!
Thanks for the reply Reggie.
If you are not familiar with Calvinism then I suggest you should pick up an introduction to Calvinism. My own personal belief is that it is never a proper method to learn about a particular belief from the opponent’s of that belief but its proponents. Leighton misrepresents Calvinism in all kinds of ways. I came here to learn about “provisionism” (Leighton’s own term) after I watched him debate James White. I wanted to know about provisionism, so I went to the source soteriology101. I also read Leighton’s book “God’s Provision for All.” I think I have a basic understanding of Leighton’s belief regarding salvation. I do not believe it is a sufficient alternative to Calvinism as I’ve noticed Leighton appeals more to logic and analogy than he does Scripture. Thanks for reading, God bless.
Thanks Roland for your response, but I was introduced to calvinism and asked to read something from R.C. Sproul three times and then to pray about it🤔 this was my first red flag…. what i can tell you again is though you seem to defend and trust this systematic.. to me in the end i find it to be lacking… and in my opinion it has God playing both sides of the chess board(analogy)…. It seems also you want to keep calling us Leighton followers (obviously in other posts) & to me this is a bit rude & uncalled for, but it seems you don’t care or you didn’t see I’ve mentioned i don’t adhere nor care for it!!! Though i find James White to be a bit arrogant and not very cordial in his discourse with Leighton he (meaning Leighton) has been kind to James in his remarks and has offered to debate him… hmmm wonder why James won’t?? does James fear man above God? And in contrast you have no problem with your label (calvinism) that’s fine, but i trust my identity is in Christ alone!!!. Maybe you can get your friend to debate Leighton🤔 but at the least please, (out of respect for a fellow Christian) stop calling us Leighton followers.
May you rest in His grace alone!
Hey Reggie thanks for the reply.
Reggie wrote: what i can tell you again is though you seem to defend and trust this systematic.. to me in the end i find it to be lacking…
I wrote: That’s good. If you believe you’ve studied Calvinism enough to come to a firm conclusion that it is lacking, that’s good. I’m not trying to persuade anyone out of their convictions. I just dislike the misrepresentations.
Reggie wrote:and in my opinion it has God playing both sides of the chess board(analogy)…
I wrote: Scripture teaches us that “God playing both sides of the chess board.” Isaiah 45:7 God forms the light (one side) and creates darkness (the other side), God makes peace and creates calamity. Also Acts 4:27 “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. In Acts we told that the men did what they did to crucify Jesus but God determined before that this would be done.
Isaiah 10:5-7
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.
Verse 12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has [b]performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.”
God sends, gives charge, but look closely at verse 7, the Assyrian does not intend to do this but it is in his heart to destroy. God is using the Assyrians’ evil heart to destroy. Verse 12 says that God will punish the Assyrian king after the Lord has performed all His work…
You call it God playing both sides of the chess aboard, as Calvinists we believe this is God exercising His sovereignty. I don’t have to make an argument that God does these things, Scripture clearly teaches us so. But non-Calvinists explain it away by saying its prophetic (do God’s prophecies come true? If so, then this must have happened in reality, it must have come to pass). They also say it is poetic language (because it is poetry it is not true?)
I don’t deny poetic, symbolic, metaphor, allegory, analogy, it is all in Scripture. The point in non-literal language is what truth is God conveying to us?
Reggie wrote:It seems also you want to keep calling us Leighton followers (obviously in other posts) & to me this is a bit rude & uncalled for,
I wrote: Fair enough, I didn’t mean to offend, won’t call you a follower of Leighton anymore. I apologize.
Reggie wrote: Though i find James White to be a bit arrogant and not very cordial in his discourse with Leighton he (meaning Leighton) has been kind to James in his remarks and has offered to debate him… hmmm wonder why James won’t??
I wrote: I agree, James can be arrogant. They already debated, it is on youtube. Leighton was off topic, didn’t exegete the text, didn’t seem prepared as he cited Clement, evaded questions, James got frustrated, it was a good presentation of a debate.
Reggie wrote: And in contrast you have no problem with your label (calvinism) that’s fine, but i trust my identity is in Christ alone!!!.
I wrote: Fully agree with a hearty amen! The Christian’s true identity is in Christ as expressed many times in the New Testament. I call myself a Calvinist here for the sake of the website’s context. I’m a follower of Christ but I do hold to some of Calvin’s teachings and interpretations regarding the Scriptures. Thanks for reading, blessings.
Reggie writes, “But really in the end it’s only God’s Word that matters and i don’t trust calvinism to be the interpretation I’d want to stake my relationship with the Creator of the universe on simply falls short and does injustice to a Holy God”
One major theme (or interpretation of Scripture) in Calvinism is that faith is required for salvation and the only way for a person to get faith is through hearing the word. Some people here don’t accept the Calvinist interpretation on this point. Where do you stand on this? Given that you say, “in the end it’s only God’s Word that matters,” what do you see God’s word saying on this issue?
Rhutchin says: “One major theme (or interpretation of Scripture) in Calvinism is that faith is required for salvation and the only way for a person to get faith is through hearing the word.”
But in Calvinism, that’s not the whole picture. It’s the part they want you to agree with (the worm on the hook) so that they can find common ground with you so that they can reel you into Calvinism. (Don’t take the bait, Reggie. And don’t let Calvinists confuse you into thinking they are saying the same thing we are. That’s what they want you to think so that you let your guard down.) In Calvinism, it’s not just “faith comes from hearing the word”. It’s “faith comes from hearing the word … AND (contradictorily) God has to give you faith first so that you can hear/understand/believe the Word.”
The gospel isn’t really “the only way to get faith” in Calvinism. If it was, then the gospel alone could do it, for anyone and everyone. The only way to “get faith” is from Calvi-god. He has to give you faith first so that you can hear/understand the gospel so that you can get faith (that he gives you) in response to the gospel. It’s nonsensical, Alice-in-Wonderland type of circular reasoning (Lewis Carroll would be proud!): You need faith to hear the the gospel but you need to hear the gospel to have faith. And that faith comes only from Calvi-god, and he will only give it to the elect. There’s nothing you can do to get it. Calvi-god has to inject faith in you. Or as Rhutchin said in a different post:
“The work of the Holy Spirit to give a person a new birth could be likened to giving a person a drug. In both cases, the person is changed, and the change is irresistibly wrought on the person. The person has no idea what happened – all he knows is that one minute he hates God and the next minute he doesn’t…. The new birth is accomplished by the Holy Spirit without the knowledge of the person, so it is irresistible.”
In Calvinism, you don’t “do” anything to become saved. You don’t love God because you chose to or wanted to, or because of the gospel, or out of gratitude for what He did for us or how much He loves us. It just happens TO you, without your decision or cooperation or even your knowledge. (Wow! Just … wow!)
The difference between Calvinism’s idea of faith and my idea of faith (I don’t want to speak for all non-Calvinists, and I am only touching on this briefly, without getting into it too deeply) is that I would say that faith IS the believing, that when we choose to trust in and believe in Jesus, we are putting our faith in Him. Whereas Calvinists would say that God has to give you the drug called “faith” that causes you to believe in Him. In Calvinism, faith and believing are two separate things, and you need to be given this thing called “faith” (before you hear the gospel) in order to believe the gospel.
If you let a Calvinist define the terms and hook you with their phrases that are meant to sound like what we say, then you’re on your way to becoming a Calvinist, just like them. They are always trying to get their foot in the door so that they can slither their whole body in after it. Always question the terms and phrases they use, and always look for what they are hiding. It’s not always what they SAY that’s the problem, but it’s what they DON’T SAY, what they hide, that’s ruins it all (and that contradicts what they said in the first place to hook you).
Heather writes, “But in Calvinism, that’s not the whole picture … AND (contradictorily) God has to give you faith first so that you can hear/understand/believe the Word.”
Actually, a person has to be regenerated in order to hear the word and in hearing the word, he receives faith. Regardless, your point is that Calvinism says that God gives faith to whoever He will. That is one way to explain why two people will go to church and hear the gospel preached but one receives faith and the other does not. You can explain how one person receives faith and another does not in your own way. So, let’s have you explain it your way and then we can evaluate it to see how it compares with Calvinism and with the Scriptures.
Then, “The gospel isn’t really “the only way to get faith” in Calvinism. If it was, then the gospel alone could do it, for anyone and everyone.”
That’s correct. However, we both know that some people receive faith and some do not – Not everyone who attended a Billy Graham Crusade ended up with faith; some did; some did not. We should be able to conclude that something else was going on besides the preaching of the gospel and the hearing of the word. The Calvinists concluded that God was involved and it was God who gave faith to one person and not another. The non-Calvinist can provide an alternative explanation. That doesn’t make Calvinism wrong and the non-Calvinist right; but it does make at least one of them wrong and perhaps, the other right.
Then, “In Calvinism, you don’t “do” anything to become saved.”
That’s correct – it’s monergistic. However, under Calvinism, sanctification is synergistic – a joint effort between man and God.
Then, “I would say that faith IS the believing, that when we choose to trust in and believe in Jesus, we are putting our faith in Him.”
Certainly, faith and believing are bosom buddies – you don’t find one without the other. However, “faith” is normally the translation of a Greek noun and “believing” is normally the translation of the Greek verb or participle. I don’t see a problem drawing a distinction between the two on that basis.
Then, “…[in Calvinism] faith and believing are two separate things, and you need to be given this thing called “faith” (before you hear the gospel) in order to believe the gospel.”
I may have messed up this explanation in an earlier post. Nonetheless, it is as I stated above, “a person has to be regenerated in order to hear the word and in hearing the word, he receives faith.”
Then, “when we choose to trust in and believe in Jesus, we are putting our faith in Him.”
The Calvinist says that a person must have faith first in order to “choose to trust in and believe in Jesus.” You seem to be saying this when you write, “we are putting our faith in Him.” By putting your faith – something you possess – in Jesus, you “choose to trust in and believe in Jesus.” I don’t see that your description is any different than Calvinism.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words :-]
Love it, Br.d.! Greta’s “How dare you” is a common joke in our house, about many different issues. As I’m sure it is in many people’s homes. 🙂
Which proper logical category does this fall under? Is it the logical norm of resorting to insults.
Its called a meme
Are you able to discern how it portrays DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS?
Rhutchin writes….. “Calvinists take ‘kingdom of God’ as a reference to salvation. Thus a person must be regenerated to enter the kingdom of heaven, i.e., be saved.”
And herein lies the problem. The “kingdom of God (heaven)” is not salvation, but rather a destination. Its where “saved” people go. No one can literally “see” or “enter” salvation, but they can certainly “see/enter” the earthly kingdom. When Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be “born again” to see/enter the kingdom, what He was saying is that one must be saved (born again) in order to see/enter the kingdom of God (heaven). The kingdom is reserved for the children of God.
Matthew 24:34, 41, 46 … Then the King will say to those (sheep nations) on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…. “Then He will also say to those (goat nations) on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels…… And these (goat nations) will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous (sheep nations) into eternal life.”
Of course the “cursed” and the “blessed” are those prophesied about to Abraham and is conditional…..
Genesis 12:1-4…. Now the LORD had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Now our Calvinist brothers might not equate the new birth with salvation, but the apostle Paul does.
Ephesians 2:4-5…. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
Did you read that? According to Paul, being “made alive together with Christ” is equivalent to “by grace you have been saved”. That’s what the text says. Carrying that line of thought forward we read….
Ephesians 2:8… For by grace you have been saved (made alive together with Christ) through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
We cannot earn (through works) our way to salvation. Salvation is the gift of God that must be received through faith.
Now will our Calvinist brothers believe any of this? Of course not. They can’t. They have bought into a system. And they know that if one petal of the TULIP is plucked, the entire flower will die.
Blessings.
phillip writes, “And herein lies the problem. The “kingdom of God (heaven)” is not salvation, but rather a destination.”
OK. Thus, we have a point of disagreement between you and the Calvinist. We now have two denominations.
At least, we agree that the kingdom is reserved for the children of God who alone see and enter into it. Paul made this point in Romans 9, “For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel. Neither, because they are Abraham’s seed, are they all children. But, “In Isaac will your seed be called.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as a seed.”
Then, “Did you read that? According to Paul, being “made alive together with Christ” is equivalent to “by grace you have been saved”. That’s what the text says. Carrying that line of thought forward we read….”
I agree. However, even you point out that faith enters into the equation. The new birth without faith accomplishes nothing. However when God makes a person alive together with Christ, we know that this is through faith, so that ““made alive together with Christ” is equivalent to “by grace you have been saved through faith.” We also know that faith comes through hearing the gospel, so we can add that to get ““by grace you have been saved through faith conveyed through the hearing of the gospel.”
“The new birth without faith accomplishes nothing.”
Faith precedes the new birth. Period. But I want to be clear. Faith does not cause the new birth. The new birth is a monergistic work of God. Period. We do nothing to cause the new birth. We are not born again because we believe, but, we are born again after we believe.
So, without faith (in Him) no one will ever experience the new birth. If you disagree with this, that’s fine, but your argument is not with me. Take it to Him.
The main point of this article is to say that Calvinists are often frustrated at the evil going on in the world…yet they hold to a “God ordains all things for His pleasure” position.
Then they will respond with, “We are not frustrated at God —-no way— but we are frustrated at man and the sin of man.”
Good! Be frustrated with us at man’s evil plans and sin—that God did not decree, want, or ordain!
But they say… “We cant say that …because God ordained all things…”
And round-n-round we go.
Of course flat-earthers insist that photos from the moon looking a earth are all doctored by NASA. But imagine if you could get a flat-earther in a space ship and send him out there. Let him float outside the capsule in space and look back at earth one way, the moon the other.
Imagine him sitting there saying, “Well this aint doctored by NASA cuz here I am …”
And you are there saying…. “Yeah go on….. go on” (you are thinking this is it!!! He is gonna get it!!!)
And he says, “So it aint doctored by NASA and it must be true…but …hum… we know the earth is flat …so….”
There you go! They cant both be true! Either God immutably ordained/ decreed/ willed/ wanted /takes pleasure in “whatsoever comes to pass” or He didnt.
Which is it?
ps. Yeah, yeah, I know, band-aide time… Make the question vanish with “unless the father draws…” or here comes an invective against FOH.
rhutchin
Romans 9 seems to be the source of the above
br.d
We are talking about a tradition of interpretation of course.
Obviously the Calvinist interpretation is going to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Which will lead them to conclude that Calvin’s god – as the divine potter – creates/designs the vast majority of humans – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
rhutchin: “Romans 9 seems to be the source of the above”
br.d: “We are talking about a tradition of interpretation of course.”
That’s fine. You can provide an alternative explanation for this phrase, “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,…” You are incorrect to say that Universal Divine Causal Determinism leads to the Calvinist understanding of the verses. The Calvinist takes the verse exactly as it reads while maintaining context with the surrounding passage.
rhutchin
You are incorrect to say that Universal Divine Causal Determinism leads to the Calvinist understanding of the verses. The Calvinist takes the verse exactly as it reads while maintaining context with the surrounding passage.
br.d
Yea – and that explains why the Calvinist reading always affirms Universal Divine Causal Determinism while everyone else’s doesn’t. :-]
br.d: “Yea – and that explains why the Calvinist reading always affirms Universal Divine Causal Determinism while everyone else’s doesn’t.”
Nonetheless, you are incorrect to say that Universal Divine Causal Determinism leads to the Calvinist understanding of the verses. If it happens that the Calvinist understanding of the verses also affirms Universal Divine Causal Determinism, I don’t see anything wrong with that.
The issue is your misrepresentation of Calvinism in saying, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism leads to the Calvinist understanding of the verses.” That is wrong.
rhutchin
Nonetheless, you are incorrect to say that Universal Divine Causal Determinism leads to the Calvinist understanding of the verses.
br.d
Is that an exact quote from me – or is that your representation of my statement? :-]
rhutchin:”Nonetheless, you are incorrect to say that Universal Divine Causal Determinism leads to the Calvinist understanding of the verses.”
br.d: “Is that an exact quote from me – or is that your representation of my statement?”
It is an accurate representation of your thinking until you explain otherwise.
rhutchin
It is an accurate representation of your thinking until you explain otherwise.
br.d
Another example of divine GNOSTICOI! :-]
It would be more intellectually honest of you to provide the actual statement I made – rather than putting words in my mouth.
And you and I both know – how much of a word-smith you are! :-]
br.d writes, “It would be more intellectually honest of you to provide the actual statement I made – rather than putting words in my mouth.”
It is easier to let you explain your position again.
I’ll do it for you – here is my typical statement
The underlying foundation of Calvinism is Universal Divine Causal Determinism
And that explains why the Calvinist reading of scripture always affirms Universal Divine Causal Determinism while everyone else’s doesn’t. :-]
br.d: “I’ll do it for you – here is my typical statement
The underlying foundation of Calvinism is Universal Divine Causal Determinism
And that explains why the Calvinist reading of scripture always affirms Universal Divine Causal Determinism while everyone else’s doesn’t.”
The underlying foundation of Calvinism is NOT Universal Divine Causal Determinism. That is a derived conclusion from the true foundation of Calvinism that includes God’s omnipotence and infinite understanding/knowledge (and the other attributes of God) that make Him sovereign over His creation.
So long as it is maintained that God is sovereign being omnipotent and having infinite understanding/knowledge, the Calvinist reading of any Scripture will be consistent with a conclusion of Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Not sure how others avoid this conclusion.
rhutchin
The underlying foundation of Calvinism is NOT Universal Divine Causal Determinism. That is a derived conclusion from the true foundation of Calvinism that includes God’s omnipotence and infinite understanding/knowledge (and the other attributes of God) that make Him sovereign over His creation.
br.d
Nah!
Universal Divine Casual Determinism – is what makes the Calvinist conception of divine attributes unique to Calvinism. :-]
br.d — to Roland
Ok – lets do a little logic.
Let’s label “Whatsoever comes to pass” as [X]
You’ve stated that 100% of [X] is determined at the foundation of the world before man is created
You’ve stated that ZERO% of [X] is left UN-determined.
So – seeing that we have 100% of [X] that is determined before man exists
I’m sure you will agree that each [X] that is determined – represents a choice by the divine mind – correct?
Roland
Ok, so here is where we are going to run into a wall. I’m anticipating that you are somehow going to disprove Calvinism by logic or that it is against reason. I’ve expressed this before, I do not subject the Word of God to logic, reason, philosophy, etc. If I do so, then my authority is something outside of God’s Word, which I reject.
br.d
Ok yes – we have run into a wall.
You’ve told me that you are anticipating some form of TRUTH THROUGH LOGIC that is not going to fit with Calvinism.
Therefore any TRUTH which moves in that direction must be rejected.
BTW:
Where we were going with that – was not so much about LOGIC – but more about simple math.
But be that as it may – you’ve told me that dialog with you is going to hit a wall – unless that dialog leads to a conclusion that you find acceptable.
So LOGICAL dialog is out of the question.
Which makes the process of dialog senseless
THE PARABLE OF MISREPRESENTING CALVINISM
Once upon a time, an automobile manufacture designed a luxury car with expectations of record-breaking sales. But the care was not without controversy. At highway speeds, the hood assembly would flip up and smash into the windshield. Newspapers ran stories, jokingly calling it the “flying hood car”.
Auto dealers found customers asking: “is this the flying hood car?” Salespersons were instructed to say: “You must be thinking of a different car, because this unit doesn’t have a hood. What it has is an upper engine cover.”
One day a potential customer instantly recognized the car. The salesman corrected him saying: “You must be thinking of a different car because this unit doesn’t have a hood, what it has is an upper engine cover.”
But the customer insisted he saw the car in the newspapers. The salesman now frustrated insisted: “I’m sorry sir you must be mistaken”. But still the customer would not relent. At that point the unhappy salesman accused him of misrepresenting the car and politely asked him to leave.
The moral of the story:
Yes, it is possible to misrepresent Calvinism. But perhaps it is more truthful to say you are not representing it the way Calvinists want it to be represented?
In 1536 John Calvin revived Augustinian theology, which from its inception has survived under a dark cloud of controversy within Christianity. Decades of unrelenting scrutiny have shaped Calvinism as a society. And nowhere more can this be observed than with Calvinism’s unique language.
As you read articles here, you will soon discover that Calvinist language is heavily reliant upon highly evolved talking points, strategically designed to present Calvinism in a certain light.
An extremely hyper reliance upon euphemistic and misleading language, sets Calvinism apart from all other forms of Christianity. And most Calvinists are simply not aware of this aspect of their belief system.
So please consider what happens in the Calvinist’s mind when he hears you unpackaging Calvinism without using a select library of highly evolved talking points through which he has always heard it, and with which it is always carefully presented.
It’s not a hood, it’s an upper engine cover. When you don’t say it the way Calvinists are taught to say it, in their minds you are misrepresenting the product.
CALVINISMS THINKING PATTERNS
Another MEME to help Calvinists see themselves! :-]
br.d wrote:
Roland,
Some time it would be interesting to chat with you about your idea of human freedom in Calvinism.
Is suspect you embrace what is called “Compatibilist” freedom.
roland
it’s not my idea of human freedom in Calvinism. It is the Scriptural truth of God’s sovereignty, human freedom and responsibility as revealed in Scripture. Yes, your suspicion is correct, I embrace the biblical truth of compatibilisim. If you really want to understand where I’m coming from then I would suggest you to read God’s Greater Glory by Bruce Ware and What About Freewill? by Scott Christensen. Christensen’s book is more on point than Ware’s, which is broader.
Thanks
But you do know – we can’t just simply claim that Calvinism’s interpretation of scripture is canon.
So we don’t question scripture
But we do question a human interpretation.
So in that regard – do you agree with the following statement?
For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – Calvin’s god must grant that [X] freedom to come to pass.
br.d
For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – Calvin’s god must grant that [X] freedom to come to pass.
roland
Yes, I agree with the statement. I do have an issue with the manner in which your statement is written, maybe even your thinking behind it. I would say that God’s granting is in God’s infallible decree. It is not as if God is infallibly decreeing something, then jumping into time to grant something.
Are you arguing from a logical or chronological perspective? For me, God’s infallible decree is logically first, yet there is a chronological working out of God’s decree. Your statement makes it sound like God has infallibly decreed something then He must enter into into His infallible decree to grant or not grant something.
There were no intended implications concerning how that would look in terms of time.
Its simply a statement of how freedom fits into Calvinism’s theology.
So since you agree with that statement – I think you will also agree that the same principle holds true for divine permission as well.
Therefore – concerning permission – we can write:
For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – Calvin’s god must grant [X] permission to come to pass.
You agree with this statement also?
br.d
For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – Calvin’s god must grant [X] permission to come to pass.
You agree with this statement also?
roland
No, because God’s infallibly decree is in perfect harmony with God’s granting and permission. I don’t believe God must “grant [X] permission to come to pass.” That’s like saying God must “permit [X] permission to come to pass.” I think you’re trying to set me up with a syllogism that shows God decreeing something against itself such as where you argue God infallibly decreed something but then He has to prevent His own infallible decree. It may work that way in your mind and logically, but that is not how Scripture has revealed God to work.
I agree with “For any [X] which God has infallibly decreed to come to pass, [X] will come to pass.” There are also a variety of means God has infallibly decreed such as permitting. It is not God playing both sides of the chess board as I’ve read some noncalvinists put it. That’s sound like where your argument is headed.
No, because God’s infallibly decree is in perfect harmony with God’s granting and permission
Perhaps the problem is with the word “MUST” in the statement.
It implies something that he is obligated to do – outside of his will – which would not be logical.
How about this?
For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – it logically follows – [X] is permitted to come to pass.
br.d
For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – it logically follows – [X] is permitted to come to pass.
roland
Yes, [X] is permitted to come to pass.
Cool!
So what we are doing is looking at how permission and freedom are interrelated.
I would imagine you would agree that there must be some things that Calvin’s god does not permit?
Would you agree with this statement for example?
The infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.
br.d
The infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.
roland
You seem to have a disjointed view of God and His infallible decrees. The infallible decree comes from God, it does not operate on its own like some kind of force God sent out into the world to accomplish its purpose.
I do not agree with the statement that “the infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.” The infallible decree is not anything but what God has declared to be the end from the beginning. If you’re going to criticize the “infallible decree,” then what you are really doing is criticizing God from whom the infallible decree flows from.
What makes you think of this idea that “the infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified”? To a Calvinists, that is like saying, “the God of the universe does not permit himself to be falsified.”
I can’t help but think that you believe there is not any harmony between God and His infallible decree.
Roland
What makes you think of this idea that “the infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified”? To a Calvinists, that is like saying, “the God of the universe does not permit himself to be falsified.”
br.d
Since the infallible decree is an extension of Calvin’s god – we can make the statement either way.
What you have would work for me except that it should include the infallible decree.
For example,
Calvin’s god does not permit himself and thus his infallible decree to be falsified.
How does that work for you?
br.d
For example,
Calvin’s god does not permit himself and thus his infallible decree to be falsified.
How does that work for you?
roland
As a Calvinist, I can’t think of a situation where God permits or doesn’t permit Himself. For God to permit Himself means that He is somehow in conflict with Himself. There is no conflict within God. There are not two wills or two desires within God where God has to permit something about Himself to happen, where without that permission, it would not happen.
God is in perfect harmony, in Trinity, in decree, in purpose, in plan, in willing, in ordaining, there’s nothing about God to even suggest that something about Him must be permitted.
br.d
Calvin’s god does not permit himself and thus his infallible decree to be falsified.
How does that work for you?
roland
As a Calvinist, I can’t think of a situation where God permits or doesn’t permit Himself.
br.d
AH!
This has to do with the way people use the term “himself” – it can be used in different ways.
You are interpreting it as something he does to himself – where I was interpreting at something or someone else would do to his self.
How about this?
As part of the expression of Calvin’s god’s divine sovereignty – his decree is established as infallible and immutable – and as such its falsification is never permitted
br.d
How about this?
As part of the expression of Calvin’s god’s divine sovereignty – his decree is established as infallible and immutable – and as such its falsification is never permitted
roland
Two problems: first, God’s decree is never established as infallible and immutable, it just is infallible and immutable. It is revealed or manifested to humans in time so that we may see its infallibility and immutability, but it is not established in the sense of it never was established.
“and as such its falsification is never permitted” is the second problem. I can’t agree with the idea that God’s decree permits, being infallible and immutable, falsification of His self. God’s decree is an expression of HIs wisdom and knowledge which is perfect. In order for God’s decree at any time to falsify itself MUST mean that God’s wisdom and knowledge is FALSE. I believe this would be a proposition both you and I would reject. If God’s wisdom and knowledge at any time is false or His decree contains falsification, then how can we trust His Word which is another expression of God’s knowledge and wisdom?
Nothing in God is false, including His decree. I’m still confused as to why you bring falsification, permission, and God’s decree together.
What is it in Calvinism that brings this issue up for you?
Roland
What is it in Calvinism that brings this issue up for you?
br.d
There is a fundamental relationship between freedom and permission.
For example, a son asks his father if he can take the car out for a drive.
The father says – you are free to drive the car up until 5PM because you need to be home for supper. at that time.
And that is what I am permitting you do to on this occasion.
Or for example – a prisoner is free to walk about in a large fenced in area in order to get sunshine and exercise.
Therefore the prisoner is permitted to walk about in that area
So do you see how permission and freedom are interrelated?
br.d
So do you see how permission and freedom are interrelated?
roland
Yes, I do see how permission and freedom are interrelated. The examples you gave are examples of superiority and inferiority. The father and son, the prison and the prisoner. In Calvinism we don’t see God’s decree, will, plan, purpose as being inferior or superior to each other.
How does permission and freedom relate to God’s decree in this manner?
Roland
How does permission and freedom relate to God’s decree in this manner?
br.d
In the two examples – you noted superior and inferior positions which is an astute observation.
I think you will agree that the infallible decree exercises a position of superiority over creation.
In the example of the father giving his son freedom to drive the care – his statement can be likened to a decree
But a human decree is not infallible or immutable.
For example, I can flip an coin and decree that the coin will land heads-up.
But my human sovereignty does guarantee that decree will infallibly come to pass
So if the coin lands tails-up – then it doing so has falsified decree.
That is logical in this case because my decree is not infallible.
But Calvin’s god’s decree is infallible and immutable and it cannot be falsified.
So if we use that as an example:
Where it is infallibly decreed that a coin will land heads-up – is that coin permitted to falsify that infallible decree?
br.d
So if we use that as an example:
Where it is infallibly decreed that a coin will land heads-up – is that coin permitted to falsify that infallible decree?
roland
No because any falsification of an infallible decree would mean that the decree is fallible. It is not that the coin is not PERMITTED, it is that the coin has been INFALLIBLY DECREED to land heads up.
br.d
Where it is infallibly decreed that a coin will land heads-up – is that coin permitted to falsify that infallible decree?
Roaldn
No because any falsification of an infallible decree would mean that the decree is fallible.
br.d
Yes I agree
So there is a sense in which the coin is not permitted to falsify the infallible
Roland
It is not that the coin is not PERMITTED, it is that the coin has been INFALLIBLY DECREED to land heads up.
br.d
Yes – so what does that infallible decree permit?
And what does it not permit?
br.d
Yes – so what does that infallible decree permit?
And what does it not permit?
roland
Whatever God has decreed it to permit or not permit. The infallible decree comes from God it does not operate on its own. God doesn’t decree things in the sense of permission and not permission. He decrees them as He pleases. To say that God decrees so as to permit or not permit sounds as if you are saying there is an opposite and subordinate or an equal decree to God’s decree.
Permission implies a reaction to something just as the examples you gave in an earlier post. The father is reacting to the son’s desire to drive. God’s decree is not a reaction to anything as it precedes creation.
Roland
Permission implies a reaction to something just as the examples you gave in an earlier post. The father is reacting to the son’s desire to drive. God’s decree is not a reaction to anything as it precedes creation.
br.d
Yes! A very logical deduction!!!
But we have a problem then – because he have prominent Calvinist leaders who do use permission language in this very way.
You’ve enunciated that he concept of permission is not appropriate because it implies reaction to the creature – where no such reaction exists.
So lets apply that reasoning to the story of Joseph’s brothers desire to kill Joseph vs sell him to Egyptian traders
Just as permission is not applicable to a father reacting to his sons desire – then permission is also not applicable to Joseph’s brother’s desire. Because permission in such case implies reaction to what Josephs brother’s desire would be.
And Calvin’s god’s decree is not a reaction to anything – it precedes creation.
Therefore it is not legitimate for a Calvinist to say:
Calvin’s god permitted Joseph’s brothers to sell Joseph into slavery – but did NOT permit Joseph’s brothers to kill Joseph.
What we are doing in this case – is refusing to use permission language as it applies to Calvin’s god and the creature.
br.d
Therefore it is not legitimate for a Calvinist to say:
Calvin’s god permitted Joseph’s brothers to sell Joseph into slavery – but did NOT permit Joseph’s brothers to kill Joseph.
What we are doing in this case – is refusing to use permission language as it applies to Calvin’s god and the creature.
roland
Yes we can if we look at the desires of Joseph’s brothers’ hearts. If it is in their hearts to sell Joseph into slavery, Calvinists can say that God permitted it to happen by not intervening, all done by God’s decree. The same goes for the brothers’ desire to kill Joseph. A Calvinist can argue that here God did intervene to stop Joseph’s brothers from killing him. But in all this, God’s decree preceded these events. It is not as if God looked into the future to see what COULD POSSIBLY happen and then use the means of permission to accomplish HIs decree, His decree preceded this events.
Something else of importance is the manner by which God has expressed or revealed Himself and His actions through Scripture. If God reveals Himself as using the means of permitting and not permitting in Scripture, then as a Calvinist I accept that means even though it may seem that permission language is being used in its non-normative sense.
Roland
Yes we can if we look at the desires of Joseph’s brothers’ hearts. If it is in their hearts to sell Joseph into slavery, Calvinists can say that God permitted it to happen by not intervening, all done by God’s decree
br.d
Ok – so if the Calvinist can say that Calvin’s god permitted Josephs brothers to sell him into slavery – then it logically follows – the Calvinist can say Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Josephs brothers to kill Joseph.
Correct?
br.d
Ok – so if the Calvinist can say that Calvin’s god permitted Josephs brothers to sell him into slavery – then it logically follows – the Calvinist can say Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Josephs brothers to kill Joseph.
Correct?
roland
Correct. Didn’t I answer this in an earlier post? Did miss something?
Ok,
And therefore – what is infallibly decreed is what is permitted
And what is not infallibly decreed is what is not permitted.
Correct?
br.d writes, “Ok,
And therefore – what is infallibly decreed is what is permitted
And what is not infallibly decreed is what is not permitted.’
– what is infallibly decreed is what is decreed.
what is not infallibly decreed is what is not decreed.
I don’t see that it is a matter of permission, at least, as Calvin said, not mere permission.
br.d writes, “Ok,
And therefore – what is infallibly decreed is what is permitted
And what is not infallibly decreed is what is not permitted.’
roland
rhutchin spoke for me, I’m in agreement with his response to your statement. What is not infallibly decreed is what is not decreed.
rhutchin
I don’t see that it is a matter of permission, at least, as Calvin said, not mere permission.
br.d
rhutchin – that tells me you don’t know very much about Calvin.
Calvin does not discount permission completely.
What he does is embrace a conception of permission that is differentiated from the NORMATIVE definition of the term permission.
He follows Augustine – who attaches a certain meaning to the term permission.
John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
So for Calvin – there are two kinds of permission.
And he qualifies them by calling one of them “MERE” permission.
“MERE” permission is the kind of permission which humans have
But Calvin forcibly rejects that kind of permission as applicable to his god – calling it a “Frivolous Evasion”
The meaning which he attaches to “permission” is CAUSE.
What is CAUSED is permitted
What is NOT CAUSED is NOT permitted.
And that makes perfect sense with Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Now the terms “Libertarian Freedom” and “Compatiblism” are not in Calvin’s vernacular.
So for Calvin “MERE” permission logically equates to what we today call Libertarian Freedom
And that is why Calvin rejects it.
But he does not reject using the term “Permission”
He simply rejects the NORMATIVE definition.
br.d writes, ‘So for Calvin “MERE” permission logically equates to what we today call Libertarian Freedom
And that is why Calvin rejects it.”
Mere permission equates to passive indifference by God for His creation that Calvin rejected. Because God is omnipotent, He can never be passively indifferent to His creation. By necessity, God must rule on each and every event that happens and that is what he does in His decree. Libertarian freedom is an attempt to evade God’s decree and give people the ability to choose something God did not decree.
br.d
So for Calvin “MERE” permission logically equates to what we today call Libertarian Freedom
And that is why Calvin rejects it.”
rhutchin
Mere permission equates to passive indifference by God for His creation….
br.d
Correct!
That is where Calvin also rejects it saying this is:
-quote
“A distinction has been made between DOING and PERMITTING (institiutes)
In other words
1) What Calvin’s god DOES he PERMITS
2) What Calvin’s god DOES NOT DO – he DOES NOT PERMIT
Thus “passive Indifference” equates to the opposite of EXHAUSTIVE Divine Determinism
And the opposite of EXHAUSTIVE Divine Determinism – is SEMI-Determinism
Which in our current vernacular equates tor some degree of Libertarian Freedom.
All of which is rejected by Calvin.
br.d writes, “Thus “passive Indifference” equates to the opposite of EXHAUSTIVE Divine Determinism”
That’s why Calvin opposed it and opposed mere permission that he identified with passive indifference.
Then, “And the opposite of EXHAUSTIVE Divine Determinism – is SEMI-Determinism. Which in our current vernacular equates tor some degree of Libertarian Freedom.”
Which helps to explain the inability of those who advocate LFW to define LFW in a way that distinguishes it from compatibilist free will without degrading some of God’s attributes as the Open Theists have done.
br.d
Thus “passive Indifference” equates to the opposite of EXHAUSTIVE Divine Determinism”
Which logically entails a compromise to EXHAUSTIVE Determinism
Which logically entails (in our vernacular today) Libertarian Freedom
And that’s why Calvin rejects it
rhutchin
That’s why Calvin opposed it and opposed mere permission that he identified with passive indifference.
br.d
I should hope he opposed what he opposed! :-]
rhutchin
Which helps to explain the inability of those who advocate LFW to define LFW in a way that distinguishes it from compatibilist free will
br.d
Well – since Calvinists are always trying to SMUGGLE “MERE” permission back into the system – that certainly explains their are attributes of Libertarian Freedom which they want – while claiming to reject.
For example:
SMUGGLING in an Epistemic function of being the DETERMINER of TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
What a hoot! ;-D
br.d
Ok,
And therefore – what is infallibly decreed is what is permitted
And what is not infallibly decreed is what is not permitted.
Correct?
roland
No, not correct. What is not infallibly decreed is not decreed. You are equating God’s decree with God’s permission. Its a slight movement of the hand you made there. 🙂
br.d
Ok,
And therefore – what is infallibly decreed is what is permitted
And what is not infallibly decreed is what is not permitted.
Correct?
roland
No, not correct. What is not infallibly decreed is not decreed. You are equating God’s decree with God’s permission. Its a slight movement of the hand you made there. 🙂
br.d
Actually – I think it is consistent with your thinking
For some reason – you don’t see it.
You stated that using permission language is fine – where we say Calvin’s god did not permit Josephs brothers kill Joseph
So what we have there is clearly NON-Permission.
So how does that relate to the infallible decree?
It would have to be the case that Calvin’s god did not infallibly decree Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph.
Because if he did infallibly decree them to do that – then we certainly can’t say he didn’t permit them to do it
So the absence of that infallible decree coincidences with the absence of permission.
Calvin god not infallibly decreeing [X] – logically equates to Calvin’s god not permitting [X].
Its perfectly LOGICAL to me
I don’t see any slight of hand with that equation.
br.d
So the absence of that infallible decree coincidences with the absence of permission.
Calvin god not infallibly decreeing [X] – logically equates to Calvin’s god not permitting [X].
Its perfectly LOGICAL to me
I don’t see any slight of hand with that equation
roland
The slight of hand is equating God’s infallible decree with permitting. I AGREE with you, it is perfectly LOGICAL. Here’s the issue I have with your argument. While it has proper form, its content is making a false equivalence between God’s infallible decree and God permitting or not permitting. I tried to explain this earlier. I’ll restate it: Calvinists believe God made one infallible decree that has different MEANS to accomplish it. These MEANS include divine permission, secondary causes, creaturely freedom, natural disasters, creaturely motives, intents, desires, and more. To equate any one of these means to God’s infallible decree is to make a false equivalence as they are not all the same nor all they all equal.
br.d
So the absence of that infallible decree coincidences with the absence of permission.
roland
Yes but the infallible decree is not the same as permission. The absence of the infallible decree means the absence of everything except what was before the infallible decree. Think of it as a container with its contents. If the container is not there, neither are the contents. Yet the container and the contents are not the same.
So the absence of that container coincides with the absence of the contents. Yes, but they are not equal and it seems like you are arguing for an equivalence between God’s infallible decree and God’s permission.
Roland
Calvinists believe God made one infallible decree that has different MEANS to accomplish it.
br.d
This is definitely not true!
All sorts of influential Calvinists speak of multiple decrees
Tom Hicks of Founders Ministries uses Decree(s) plural
Calvinist Martyn Lloyd-Jones speaks about the decree(s) plural
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin does the same
And many other Calvinist authors.
Roland
These MEANS include divine permission, secondary causes, creaturely freedom, natural disasters, creaturely motives, intents, desires, and more. To equate any one of these means to God’s infallible decree is to make a false equivalence as they are not all the same nor all they all equal.
br.d
AH!
So the MEANS includes permission.
And I’m sure you would say that the MEANS is a part of that which is infallibly decreed.
The MEANS can’t happen by accident or by random
The MEANS must also be determined and established by the infallible decree
Obviously then – if there is no infallible decree – then there is no MEANS.
And since MEANS includes permission – then where there is no MEANS – there is no permission.
roland
Think of it as a container with its contents. If the container is not there, neither are the contents. Yet the container and the contents are not the same. So the absence of that container coincides with the absence of the contents.
br.d
Yes – I see what you mean.
Roland
Yes, but they are not equal and it seems like you are arguing for an equivalence between God’s infallible decree and God’s permission.
br.d
AH!
That is not what I had in mind
Lets see what we can do to avoid that.
So based on what you stated earlier about permission being contained within the MEANS – I think we can formulate some statement which correlates permission with the infallible decree.
How about this?
The infallible decree includes the MEANS – which includes permission.
br.d
This is definitely not true!
All sorts of influential Calvinists speak of multiple decrees
Tom Hicks of Founders Ministries uses Decree(s) plural
Calvinist Martyn Lloyd-Jones speaks about the decree(s) plural
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin does the same
And many other Calvinist authors.
roland
True, Calvinists will use the word decree in a singular and plural sense. But those “decrees” are all within the one infallible decree. I’ve never met a Calvinist who would reject God’s one infallible decree but at the same time we speak of “decrees.” I can tell you that those men are not speaking of multiple decrees in the sense that God decrees and decrees and decrees and so on. He decreed whatsoever comes to pass once but the decree works itself out as “decrees” of God.
Got it.
The bottom line is – not one molecule moves without that movement being infallibly decreed.
So I can see how Calvinists can speak about it in both plural and singular because it determines everything EXHAUSTIVELY. – :-]
Roland
The question about God permitting darkness cannot even be raised, it’s impossible.
br.d
On second thought – I can’t see how this is true in Calvinism.
Sin is a form of darkness
And whatsoever sin comes to pass is infallibly decreed
And the content of that decree includes the MEANS
And the MEANS includes permission.
So we do have Calvin’s god permitting darkness.
br.d writes, “Ok – so if the Calvinist can say that Calvin’s god permitted Josephs brothers to sell him into slavery – then it logically follows – the Calvinist can say Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Josephs brothers to kill Joseph.”
Calvinists say that God decreed Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery and that is what happened. If we want to say that God, by His decree, had to permit the brothers to sell Joseph and had to restrain (or not permit) them from killing Joseph, that is fine as that is the way Calvin used the term, “permit,” and it is the basis for his objection to “mere permission.”
rhutchin
Calvinists say that God decreed Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery and that is what happened.
br.d
And the Calvinist also says that is what Calvin’s god permitted.
Thank you for affirming my point.
And now lets see if you can acknowledge the contrapositive
Where that which is infallibly decreed is permitted – it LOGICALLY follows – that which is NOT decreed is NOT permitted
rhutchin
that is fine as that is the way Calvin used the term, “permit,” and it is the basis for his objection to “mere permission.”
br.d
Is that supposed to be another example of the Calvinists “logical” explanation???
The problem with Calvinism’s use of permission language – is the fact that it INFERS “MERE” permission
Which any RATIONAL thinker can clearly observe from so many of your posts
BTW:
Claiming to object to “MERE” permission while strategically appealing to it is not “Logical” :-]
br.d writes, “The problem with Calvinism’s use of permission language – is the fact that it INFERS “MERE” permission”
Not if you understand Calvin and the distinction he made between permit and mere permission. If one is ignorant of that distinction, then he will follow his own understanding and think of Calvin inferring mere permission. Calvin used the term, “permit,” to explain how God interacts with His creation but he objected to this being called mere permission.
br.d
The problem with Calvinism’s use of permission language – is the fact that it INFERS “MERE” permission
rhutchin
Not if you understand Calvin and the distinction he made between permit and mere permission.
br.d
If that were TRUE – we wouldn’t see so many Calvinists trying to SMUGGLE in “MERE” permission back into their system! :-]
br.d: “If that were TRUE – we wouldn’t see so many Calvinists trying to SMUGGLE in “MERE” permission back into their system!”
I guess Calvinists are not really trying to smuggle in “MERE” permission back into their system.
br.d
If that were TRUE – we wouldn’t see so many Calvinists trying to SMUGGLE in “MERE” permission back into their system!”
rhutchin
I guess Calvinists are not really trying to smuggle in “MERE” permission back into their system.
br.d
We can chalk that up to either ignorance of their own behavior – or lack of intellectual honesty – because we have a consistent pattern of exactly that – as clearly shown by your posts.
Ah – but perhaps you think Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits you to think for yourself? :-]
br.d: “We can chalk that up to either ignorance of their own behavior – or lack of intellectual honesty – because we have a consistent pattern of exactly that – as clearly shown by your posts. ”
Actually, we see a consistent pattern of your very active imagination causing you to see things that are not there.
br.d
Just as permission is not applicable to a father reacting to his sons desire – then permission is also not applicable to Joseph’s brother’s desire. Because permission in such case implies reaction to what Josephs brother’s desire would be.
roland
But there is another sense in which permission is used without a reaction. I was born in the United States with all the rights and privileges as granted to me in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, I have PERMISSION to vote but this does not come from a reaction. This permission is granted to me by mere status and birthplace. I did not have to approach the United States government and ask for permission to vote, I was born with it.
It could also be said of permission and decree. Permission is contained within God’s decree as a means by which God’s decree is carried out.
Roland
But there is another sense in which permission is used without a reaction. I was born in the United States with all the rights and privileges as granted to me in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, I have PERMISSION to vote but this does not come from a reaction.
br.d
Yes
So we have another case of governmental sovereignty granting you permission for certain things which are permitted as part of your citizenship
And there must likewise be things which governmental sovereignty does not permit.
br.d
Yes
So we have another case of governmental sovereignty granting you permission for certain things which are permitted as part of your citizenship
And there must likewise be things which governmental sovereignty does not permit.
roland
We are in agreement. 🙂
br.d
And there must likewise be things which governmental sovereignty does not permit.
roland
We are in agreement. :-]
br.d
Does the government permit its sovereignty to be thwarted by its citizens?
br.d
Does the government permit its sovereignty to be thwarted by its citizens?
roland
No it does not. But this analogy is not equivalent to the relationship God has with His creatures. It breaks down because the nature between God and His creatures is different, while the government and its citizens are composed of humans, which have exact natures.
br.d
Does the government permit its sovereignty to be thwarted by its citizens?
roland
No it does not. But this analogy is not equivalent to the relationship God has with His creatures.
br.d
So Calvin’s god’s permits his sovereignty (in the form of his infallible decree) to be thwarted by his creatures?
br.d
So Calvin’s god’s permits his sovereignty (in the form of his infallible decree) to be thwarted by his creatures?
roland
No.
br.d
So Calvin’s god’s permits his sovereignty (in the form of his infallible decree) to be thwarted by his creatures?
roland
No.
br.d
Ok
So he doesn’t permit his sovereignty (in the form of his infallible decree) to be thwarted by his creatures.
So what aspect of Calvin’s god does not permit that – except the attribute of his sovereignty?
br.d
Ok
So he doesn’t permit his sovereignty (in the form of his infallible decree) to be thwarted by his creatures.
So what aspect of Calvin’s god does not permit that – except the attribute of his sovereignty?
roland
The very nature of God Himself does not permit that His sovereignty be thwarted. He is Lord. John Frame’s Theology of Lordship books are really helpful as to God’s efficacy and control. Here’s a quote from Frame.
“At a time when theologies are regularly built around central motifs like history, hope, love, reconciliation, and liberation, it is a bit surprising that so few focus on the concept of divine lordship. In view of the centrality of lordship in Scripture’s own doctrine of God, and specifically in its Christology, it would seem to be an obvious choice as a central motif for theological discussion.”
This is sadly missing in many evangelical churches today: the Lordship of the Triune God as the central motif of worship, preaching, teaching, fellowship, evangelism, apologetics, and so on. Before I became Reformed and began to attend a Reformed church, divine Lordship was not a central motif in my church or personal life. I was seeking the kingdom of God so that all these things would be added unto me but I was not seeking the King of the kingdom.
roland
The very nature of God Himself does not permit that His sovereignty be thwarted.
br.d
Ok thanks
So would it then be LOGICAL to say:
The very nature of Calvin’s god himself does not permit his infallible decree to be falsified?
br.d
Ok thanks
So would it then be LOGICAL to say:
The very nature of Calvin’s god himself does not permit his infallible decree to be falsified?
roland
No, that’s not ok. Using the word permission sounds as if there is conflict within God. He’s not at conflict with Himself. He doesn’t need to permit Himself to do this or that and so on. He’s perfect in being, in action, in all things. He’s not like us as His wisdom and knowledge are perfect. He is truth, so He doesn’t need to permit anything about what He does or says to not be falsified. In Him there is no darkness, only light. The question about God permitting darkness in cannot even be raised, it’s impossible. He cannot lie and it is not that He permits Himself not to lie, He cannot lie.
Numbers 23:19
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Titus 1:2
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Hebrews 6:18
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
For a Calvinist this does not even enter our mind as Scripture clearly teaches that God cannot lie or falsify anything.
So would it then be LOGICAL to say:
The very nature of Calvin’s god himself does not permit his infallible decree to be falsified?
roland
No, that’s not ok. Using the word permission sounds as if there is conflict within God. He’s not at conflict with Himself.
br.d
I don’t understand how Calvin’s god not permitting his infallible decree to be falsified would constitute an internal conflict.
It would seem to me that it would mean the opposite – that his nature is self-affirming
Roland
The question about God permitting darkness cannot even be raised, it’s impossible. He cannot lie and it is not that He permits Himself not to lie, He cannot lie.
br.d
Yes I can understand that.
But you do have permission within the infallible decree – which you stated is part of the MEANS.
The example you gave was the brothers of Joseph being permitted to sell Joseph into slavery – was part of the MEANS.
So that was something that was permitted.
And Calvin’s god did not permit them to kill Joseph
So that was NOT permitted.
Now you said – permission (i.e. that which is permitted) is contained within the MEANS.
What about that which is NON-Permitted?
Where does that fit in?
There can be many thousands of possible things which Calvin’s god simply chooses not to come to pass.
Is it your understanding that he infallibly decrees all of those things to NOT come to pass?
Or is it your understanding that there is simply no decree for that which does not come to pass?
br.d
Ok thanks
So would it then be LOGICAL to say:
The very nature of Calvin’s god himself does not permit his infallible decree to be falsified?
roland
Been following your discussion with rhutchin, no response needed. Looks almost like our discussion.
br.d
Yes
So we have another case of governmental sovereignty granting you permission for certain things which are permitted as part of your citizenship
And there must likewise be things which governmental sovereignty does not permit.
roland
Yes, there are things which governmental sovereignty does not permit.
roland
Yes, there are things which governmental sovereignty does not permit.
br.d
And there must be things which the infallible decree does not permit?
br.d
And there must be things which the infallible decree does not permit?
roland
Since the infallible decree comes from God, there are things that God will not permit. Remember, in Calvinism, the infallible decree is God’s infallible decree. Sometimes you write as if “the infallible decree” is some kind of force wandering about the universe without any direction or some kind of impersonal force permitting or not permitting. It reminds me of the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses would talk about the Holy Spirit when I would come across them in my old neighborhood.
I got a kick out of that!
I never thought of it as a force wandering around in the universe.
I don’t think anything in Calvinism is wandering around in the universe.
R.C. Sproul says – there is no such thing as a maverick molecule in Calvinism
This reminds me of a certain movie where a farmer was standing in his chicken house holding a rifle watching a chicken thief.
And the farmer said “This gun is not going to permit you to take any chickens” ;-D
Obviously what he meant was – he was not going to permit the thief to take any chickens
And the rifle was his insurance.
br.d
I got a kick out of that!
I never thought of it as a force wandering around in the universe.
I don’t think anything in Calvinism is wandering around in the universe.
R.C. Sproul says – there is no such thing as a maverick molecule in Calvinism
roland
Hey, you quoted Sproul, the most influential man in bringing me to Reformed theology! That’s why I wrote that is seems to me as if you believe that but apparently not. Good to hear, glad you got a kick out of my statement. 🙂
br.d: “And there must likewise be things which governmental sovereignty does not permit.”
Not without law. In Roland’s example, the sovereign grants certain rights to it’s citizens. The constitution does not restrict the behavior of its citizens except where the rights of one citizen are impeded by the conduct of another citizen. If the sovereign does not want to permit certain behavior, then it passes laws to restrict such behavior and they become an extension of the constitution. The point is that those things permitted or not permitted are governed by the constitution and subsequent laws just as all things are governed by God by His decree.
rhutchin
The constitution does not restrict the behavior of its citizens
br.d
Every analogy has its points of conjunction – and points of non-conjunction.
That is why no analogy is perfect
In this case – the constitution does not DETERMINE whatsoever impulse will come to pass within the human brain.
Thus the notion of restricting human behavior is not a point of conjunction with Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
rhutchin
The point is that those things PERMITTED or NOT PERMITTED are governed by the constitution and subsequent laws just as all things are governed by God by His DECREE.
br.d
Correct!
So a RATIONAL thinking person will take that to its logical conclusion
And you have what relationships between Calvin’s god’s DECREE and PERMISSION?
Lets see if you can get the answers :-]
br.d writes, “And you have what relationships between Calvin’s god’s DECREE and PERMISSION?”
In Calvinism, God’s decree equals permissiveness. Permissiveness is the active decree (as opposed to passive indifference) of God to determine what people will do – and do so consistent with their desires so that people willfully and voluntarily do what God decrees.
br.d
And you have what relationship(s) between Calvin’s god’s DECREE and PERMISSION?”
rhutchin
In Calvinism, God’s decree equals permissiveness
br..d
AH!
But why did you leave out the other half??
You explained HALF of the relationship between the DECREE AND PERMISSION
But you left out the other half
The relationship between the DECREE and NON-PERMISSION
Let’s see if you can answer that half! :-]
br.d writes, “But you left out the other half. The relationship between the DECREE and NON-PERMISSION”
The decree equals permissiveness. That which God decrees is that which He permits and God is the active agent in bringing about His decree. There is no direct relationship between the decree and non-permission. Under the decree, people do what they desire so where is non-permission if people can do what they want to do? Joseph’s brothers wanted to do something to Joseph out of jealousy and were content to sell him as a slave. They were content to tell his father that Joseph had been killed by an animal. If they did as they wanted, where is non-permission. God was not the active agent in convincing them to harm Joseph although God did create them as totally depraved individuals who were without faith. However, given their pridefulness, it is not hard to see their jealousy inflamed because of Joseph’s dreams and the coat given him by their father. They fed on their collective jealousy and this God decreed/permitted them to do. What within the decree did not permit them to do as they wanted?
br.d
But you left out the other half. The relationship between the DECREE and NON-PERMISSION”
rhutchin
There is no direct relationship between the decree and non-permission.
br.d
The question didn’t stipulate a “direct” relationship
There is a relationship between the DECREE and that which is PERMITTED
And in LOGIC there is a contrapositive.
There is a relationship between the DECREE and that which is NOT PERMITTED.
rhutchin
Under the decree, people do what they desire so where is non-permission if people can do what they want to do?
br.d
After claiming that Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Joseph’s brothers from killing Joseph – now all of a sudden – that is no longer part of the picture!!
Someone either doesn’t want to tell the TRUTH or doesn’t know it
Its very simple rhutchin
If a Calvinist can explain how Calvin’s god’s DECREE is related to what he PERMITS
Then a Calvinist can explain how Calvin’s god’s DECREE is related to what he does NOT PERMIT
Or perhaps Calvinists don’t have “logical” answers after all???
br.d writes, ‘If a Calvinist can explain how Calvin’s god’s DECREE is related to what he PERMITS”
God’s decree consists of all those actions God is to take to accomplish His purpose. In decreeing those actions, God permits those actions.
Then, “Then a Calvinist can explain how Calvin’s god’s DECREE is related to what he does NOT PERMIT”
There is an [X] that God decrees to accomplish His purpose and an [~X] that God does not do, nor decree, as it would not accomplish His purpose. So, God decreed that He would create man and the decree did not involve God not creating man. God decreed the destruction of Sodom and did not involve the non-destruction of Sodom. God decreed that Joseph’s brothers would sell Joseph and God’s decree did not include Joseph’s brothers doing other than selling Joseph. God decreed that Joseph’s brothers fulfill their evil desires toward Joseph by selling him and this they did. God’s decree included Joseph’s brothers first plotting to kill Joseph and then decreed circumstances that led to the selling of Joseph.
God’s decree tells us how God acts to bring about events to accomplish His purposes. That decree does not include any actions not to be taken by God. So, we might imagine a second decree, a non-decree, of all those actions God could do but will not because they do not accomplish His purpose. There is no need for a second decree to describe actions that God will not do.
So, I will retract the language that I used earlier in saying that God did not permit Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph. It’s easy to describe it that way, but that was not the way to describe God’s decree. Instead God had decreed the brothers plotting to kill Joseph and also decreed circumstances that led them to sell him instead. We could reason that God did not permit the brothers to kill Joseph, but the decree doesn’t work that way; the decree identifies actions God takes to accomplish His purpose. For God to decree is for God to permit. For God to not permit is for God not to decree and that which God did not decree is not included as part of His decree.
Calvinist may also say that God restrains the sin that people do, but that is not how the decree works. God decrees circumstances that result in a person refraining from sin. For example, a person sets out to rob a bank and finds the bank protected by guards, so he does not rob the bank. A person may seek to do something unlawful but evaluates his chances of getting caught and going to prison and chooses not to so the unlawful activity.
The point here is that actions not permitted are not included in the decree.
br.d
If a Calvinist can explain how Calvin’s god’s DECREE is related to what he PERMITS – then a Calvinist can explain how Calvin’s god’s DECREE is related to what he does NOT PERMIT”
rhutchin
There is an [X] that God decrees to accomplish His purpose and an [~X] that God does not do, nor decree, as it would not accomplish His purpose.
br.d
Ok Calvin’s god decrees [X]
And Calvin’s god does not decree [NOT X]
We don’t have to repeat this fact 1000 times.
rhutchin
God decreed that Joseph’s brothers would sell Joseph and God’s decree did not include Joseph’s brothers doing other than selling Joseph.
br.d
So far so good but – Calvinists consistently and specifically claim that Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Joseph’s brother kill Joseph. That is a clear claim of NON-PERMISSION.
And since whatsoever comes to pass is the consequence of the DECREE – there has to be a relationship.
rhutchin
There is no need for a second decree to describe actions that God will not do.
br.d
Ok then!
There is one DECREE which includes what is PERMITTED (e.g. a positive decree)
And there is not second DECREE which includes what is NOT PERMITTED (e.g. a negative decree)
That means – what is PERMITTED and what is NOT-PERMITTED relates to one single DECREE.
The question then entails what is that relationship.
rhutchin
For God to NOT PERMIT is for God NOT TO DECREE
br.d
AH!
That is the answer!!
1) What is INFALLIBLY DECREED is PERMITTED
2) What is NOT INFALLIBLY DECREED is NOT PERMITTED.
br.d writes, “So far so good but – Calvinists consistently and specifically claim that Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Joseph’s brother kill Joseph. That is a clear claim of NON-PERMISSION.”
The decree itself does not include God taking an action not permitting Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph. The decree provided for the brothers to want to kill Joseph and then deciding to sell Joseph into slavery instead. Given that God issued the decree and the final result was that the brothers sold Joseph, one can describe God as not permit the brothers to kill Joseph. However, that specific action was not part of the decree – at least, nothing in Scripture identifies God taking a specific action that nullified the brothers ability to kill Joseph.
Then, “And since whatsoever comes to pass is the consequence of the DECREE – there has to be a relationship.”
The events that are part of history as recorded in Genesis do not include God reaching down and not permitting the brothers from killing Joseph. Since history says nothing about God taking that action, there is no relationship between that action and the decree. The only consequences we see in the record are that the brothers discussed killing Joseph, finally decided to sell Joseph, and told his father that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. One may speculate about God’s part in this, given that God issued the decree, and the net effect is that the brothers did not kill Joseph. We are not told about God’s involvement in this manner so it is not part of the decree. We are told that God meant for the brothers to sell Joseph and this is what happened (thus, was permitted).
Then, “There is one DECREE which includes what is PERMITTED (e.g. a positive decree).
There is one decree comprised of all events and all the decreed events are permitted events (since they obviously occurred).
Then, “That means – what is PERMITTED and what is NOT-PERMITTED relates to one single DECREE.”
No. Events that are not-permitted are not part of the decree. The decree identifies permitted events only. For example, God decreed to create the planet earth with one moon. God did not have decree that earth would not have two, three, or more moons. That would have been unnecessary given that the decree was for an earth with one moon. What we have is one decree with specific events identified and a plethora of events not included in that decree because it was not necessary fro them to be actualized.
Then, “1) What is INFALLIBLY DECREED is PERMITTED
2) What is NOT INFALLIBLY DECREED is NOT PERMITTED.”
More like this: “1) What is INFALLIBLY DECREED is, by definition, PERMITTED.
2) What is NOT DECREED/PERMITTED is not relevant to the decree.”
br.d
So far so good but – Calvinists consistently and specifically claim that Calvin’s god did NOT PERMIT Joseph’s brother kill Joseph. That is a clear claim of NON-PERMISSION.”
rhutchin
The decree itself does not include God taking an action not permitting Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph.
br.d
There is no “action” necessary in such case.
Your last statements were accurate.
1) What Calvin’s god WILLS to come to pass – he DECREES come to pass – he PERMITS come to pass.
2) What Calvin’s god DOES NOT WILL come to pass – he DOES NOT DECREE come to pass – he DOES NOT PERMIT come to pass.
rhutchin
The decree provided for the brothers to want to kill Joseph and then deciding to sell Joseph into slavery instead.
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
The decree determined impulses within the bothers brains to want to kill Joseph – and then decide to sell Joseph instead.
rhutchin
Given that God issued the decree and the final result was that the brothers sold Joseph
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
Every impulse within Joseph’s brain and Joseph’s brothers brains were meticulously determined.
But we Calvinists call that the “final result”
rhutchin
The events that are part of history as recorded in Genesis do not include God reaching down and not permitting the brothers from killing Joseph.
br.d
Now isn’t that interesting!
That gives us an indicator of something doesn’t it! :-]
rhuthcin
We are told that God meant for the brothers to sell Joseph and this is what happened (thus, was permitted).
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
Since scripture must conform to Exhaustive Determinism – the conclusion we reach is
1) What is DECREED is PERMITTED
2) What is NOT DECREED is NOT PERMITTED
rhutchin
No. Events that are not-permitted are not part of the decree.
br.d
Actually they are a LOGICAL consequence of the decree – because if that which is NOT DECREED comes to pass instead of that which IS DECREED – the DECREE is falsified. – which is logically impossible.
rhutchin
The decree identifies permitted events only
What is NOT DECREED/PERMITTED is not relevant to the decree.
br.d
Too funny
Here you have “What is NOT DECREED and NOT PERMITTED is not relevant to the decree
Another great example of how many things the Calvinist has to have things both ways
Both TRUE and FALSE at the same time!
One hand gives – while the other takes away!
But alas – I knew all along!
Because Calvinism LOGICALLY rejects “MERE” permission.
Which LOGICALLY entails – that which is NOT DECREED is NOT PERMITTED.
rhutchin: “The decree itself does not include God taking an action not permitting Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph.”
br.d: “There is no “action” necessary in such case.”
No action; no decree. God’s decrees cover all the events to come to pass and events require actions to actualize them. If no action exists, there is no event forthcoming and no decree. There is a reason, a purpose, for everything decreed.
Then, “CALVINIST INTERPRETATION. The decree determined impulses within the bothers brains to want to kill Joseph – and then decide to sell Joseph instead.”
The decree determines nothing; it only identifies what will happen. The impulses in the brother’s brains come about through the total depravity of the brothers. That total depravity results from a lack of faith so that, “…all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, isn’t the Father’s, but is the world’s.” It was the selfish, prideful impulses that account for the desire of the brothers to want to kill Joseph and then to decide to sell him instead.
Then, “if that which is NOT DECREED comes to pass instead of that which IS DECREED – the DECREE is falsified. – which is logically impossible.”
Thus, that which is not decreed cannot come to pass since it was not decreed.
Then, “Here you have “What is NOT DECREED and NOT PERMITTED is not relevant to the decree.”
How is something that is not part of the decree relevant to the decree?
br.d
There is no action necessary
rhutchin
No action; no decree
br.d
Correct!
rhutchin
God’s decrees cover all the events to come to pass and events require actions to actualize them. If no action exists, there is no event forthcoming and no decree. There is a reason, a purpose, for everything decreed.
br.d
Why repeat the same statement 100 times?
Are you trying to convince yourself?
rhutchin
The decree determines nothing; it only identifies what will happen.
br.d
Oh that is a gigantic distinction!! 😀
rhutchin
The impulses in the brother’s brains come about through the total depravity of the brothers.
br.d
Which Calvin’s god meticulously determined – to come to pass – infallibly and thus irresistibly within their brains.
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits the human brain the Libertarian function of determining its own thoughts! :-]
rhutchin
How is something that is not part of the decree relevant to the decree?
br.d
For the 10th time now – it LOGICAL my dear Watson!
1) Calvin’s god WILLS – DECREES – PERMITS
2) Calvin’s god DOES NOT WILL – DOES NOT DECREE – DOES NOT PERMIT.
Its all a part of Determinism’s causal chain.
rhutchin: “How is something that is not part of the decree relevant to the decree?”
br.d: “For the 10th time now – it LOGICAL my dear Watson!
1) Calvin’s god WILLS – DECREES – PERMITS
2) Calvin’s god DOES NOT WILL – DOES NOT DECREE – DOES NOT PERMIT.”
Exactly. What God wills, God decrees. If God does not will, God does not decree. That’s the Calvinist position. God’s decree only contains that which He wills; it excludes that which He does not will.
br.d
For the 10th time now – it’s LOGICAL my dear Watson!
1) Calvin’s god WILLS – DECREES – PERMITS
2) Calvin’s god DOES NOT WILL – DOES NOT DECREE – DOES NOT PERMIT.”
rhutchin
Exactly.
br.d
Good!
Therefore what is NOT DECREED is NOT PERMITTED
rhutchin
God’s decree only contains that which He wills; it excludes that which He does not will.
br.d
Now your getting it!
[X] is “excluded” from that which IS PERMITTED
Therefore [X] is NOT PERMITTED
br.d: “[X] is “excluded” from that which IS PERMITTED Therefore [X] is NOT PERMITTED”
[X] not included in the decree is irrelevant to anything and has no relationship with the decree other than that it is not included in the decree.
rhutchin
[X] not included in the decree is irrelevant to anything and has no relationship with the decree other than that it is not included in the decree.
br.d
You are simply repeating yourself now
How does a person repeat a statement while thinking he is disagreeing with that statement!
The term in your previous statement was “Excluded”
And “Excluded” LOGICALLY equals to “Not included”
We’re under the assumption that Calvin’s god does not “Exclude” things haphazardly without a specific reason or purpose for doing so.
If he “excludes” something – then he has a particular reason for “excluding” it.
Let [X] = Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph
Calvin’s god DID NOT PERMIT [X]
Which means – Calvin’s god DID NOT DECREE [X]
Which means – Calvin’s god DID NOT WILL [X]
Which means – Calvin’s god “excluded” [X] from his WILL and his DECREE and his PERMISSION
WILL-DECREE-PERMISSION are all LOGICALLY coherent with each other.
The relationship is LOGICAL.
NOT WILL – NOT DECREE – NOT PERMIT – are also LOGICALLY coherent with each other
Perhaps you want to argue that Calvinism is not LOGICAL?
br.d writes, “We’re under the assumption that Calvin’s god does not “Exclude” things haphazardly without a specific reason or purpose for doing so. If he “excludes” something – then he has a particular reason for “excluding” it.”
God includes those events that contribute to the wisest path to accomplishing His will. Those things not making the cut would provide an imperfect pathway to accomplishing His will. All this takes about a second (give or take) for God to figure out according to the counsel of His will and then He enacts the decree. The decree includes all those events God puts into it to accomplish His will. There is no relationship between the decree and those events God did not include in the decree other than that God did not include them in the decree.
I don’t know what your problem is as we both seem to agree on what God has done.
rhutchin
God includes those events that contribute to the wisest path to accomplishing His will.
br.d
That’s something one would certainly hope for! :-]
rhutchin
Those things not making the cut would provide an imperfect pathway to accomplishing His will.
br.d
Not quite!
They would represent an ALTERNATIVE to his WILL
And if you’ve been taking class notes – you should know – ALTERNATIVES are LOGICALLY “excluded”
rhutchin
All this takes about a second (give or take) for God to figure out according to the counsel of His will
br.d
And you know this because you’ve stood beside him for trillions of times observing the process!
That is a totally hilarious example of Gnostic thinking! ;-D
rhutchin
There is no relationship between the decree and those events God did not include in the decree other than that God did not include them in the decree.
br.d
And that which is colored has color :-]
rhutchin
I don’t know what your problem is as we both seem to agree on what God has done.
br.d
Well – I knew what was LOGICALLY coherent concerning the topic in the first place.
As I said – its LOGICAL my dear Watson! :-]
br.d writes, “They would represent an ALTERNATIVE to his WILL”
Yes, but an alternative that provided an imperfect pathway to accomplishing God’s will, thereby excluded from consideration.
br.d
They would represent an ALTERNATIVE to his WILL
And if you’ve been taking class notes – you should know – ALTERNATIVES are LOGICALLY “excluded”
rhutchin
Yes, but an alternative that provided an imperfect pathway to accomplishing God’s will, thereby excluded from consideration.
br.d
On that reasoning – Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph would have repented “an alternative that provided an imperfect pathway to accomplishing God’s will”
Thus Calvin’s god DID NOT PERMIT Joseph’s brothers to kill Joseph.
DID NOT WILL – Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph
DID NOT DECREE – Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph
DID NOT PERMIT – Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph
Have you noticed how many times you’ve gone around this circle?? :-]
br.d writes, “Thus Calvin’s god DID NOT PERMIT Joseph’s brothers to kill Joseph.
DID NOT WILL – Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph
DID NOT DECREE – Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph
DID NOT PERMIT – Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph
Have you noticed how many times you’ve gone around this circle??”
So, what action did God take to “not permit” Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph?
rhutchin
So, what action did God take to “not permit” Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph?
br.d
Well – since Calvinists have forever asserted that Calvin’s god did not permit Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph – and since you present yourself as a representative of Calvinism – and since to explain that you’ve stated the following:
1) Calvin’s god “excludes” events he does not WILL to come to pass
2) You acknowledge any ALTERNATIVE of what he WILLS is LOGICALLY “excluded”
3) And your latest iteration of that was “any ALTERNATIVE would represent an imperfect pathway to accomplishing God’s will, and is thereby excluded from consideration – which obviously entails excluding it from coming to pass
Are you having problems with Calvinist representations along with your own? :-]
rhutchin: “So, what action did God take to “not permit” Joseph’s brothers killing Joseph?”
br.d: “Well – since Calvinists have forever asserted that Calvin’s god did not permit Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph – and since you present yourself as a representative of Calvinism – and since to explain that you’ve stated the following:”
LOL!!! All you have are Calvinist explanations. You rack your brain for another way to explain, and all that comes up are the Calvinists. That’s the biggest problem non-Calvinist have – they can make up stuff; they just can’t explain it.
br.d
Are you having problems with Calvinist representations along with your own? :-]
rhutchin
LOL!!! All you have are Calvinist explanations.
br.d
And you consider that a LOGICAL conclusion?
Anyone reading this thread can see through that! :-]
rhutchin
You rack your brain for another way to explain
br.d
See my analysis below! :-]
rhutchin
and all that comes up are the Calvinists.
br.d
Calvinist representations – along with your own
Which anyone reviewing this thread can observe – you appear to not be happy about. :-]
rhutchin
That’s the biggest problem non-Calvinist have – they can make up stuff; they just can’t explain it.
br.d
How am I not surprised at conclusion!
According to you – all I went on was Calvinist explanations
And one of your explanations included you knowing how many seconds it takes Calvin’s god’s mind to make a decision
And what you conclude form that – is that I make up stuff!
What a hoot! ;-D
And accordingly it LOGICALLY follows:
1) Calvin’s god WILLED that conclusion come to pass infallibly and irresistibly within your brain
2) Calvin’s god DECREED that conclusion come to pass infallibly and irresistibly within your brain
3) Calvin’s god PERMITTED that conclusion come to pass infallibly and irresistibly within your brain
Its LOGICAL my dear Watson! :-]
rhutchin: “LOL!!! All you have are Calvinist explanations.”
br.d: “And you consider that a LOGICAL conclusion?”
LOL!!! The only logical conclusion – as evidenced by the rest of your comment.
rhutchin
LOL!!! The only logical conclusion – as evidenced by the rest of your comment.
br.d
So an interesting question would be – how many seconds did it take Calvin’s god’s mind to decide that conclusion would infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within your brain.
“excluding” any other conclusion of course.
It would be nice if you could provide that time period – in fractions of a second this time – since you know those things! :-]
br.d: “So an interesting question would be – how many seconds did it take Calvin’s god’s mind to decide that conclusion would infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within your brain.”
LOL!!! Any amount of time you want.
br.d
So an interesting question would be – how many seconds did it take Calvin’s god’s mind to decide that conclusion would infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within your brain.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Any amount of time you want.
br.d
Wow!
If I knew how many seconds it took Calvin’s god to make a given decision – I wouldn’t treat that so cavalierly!
Someone might think that was simply made up! :-]
br.d writes, “Wow! If I knew how many seconds it took Calvin’s god to make a given decision – I wouldn’t treat that so cavalierly! Someone might think that was simply made up! ”
LOL!!! I doubt that anyone would even give it the time of day.
rhutchin
LOL!!! I doubt that anyone would even give it the time of day.
br.d
Well – any thing that is as Gnostic as that certainly catches my attention! :-]
br.d: “Well – any thing that is as Gnostic as that certainly catches my attention!”
Oh!!! If only the Scriptures could capture your attention in like manner.
rhutchin
Oh!!! If only the Scriptures could capture your attention in like manner
br.d
I was wondering where your source of info was – for knowing how many seconds Calvin’s god’s mind takes to make a decision.
But of course you got that from scripture – like everything else! :-]
rhutchin
All this takes about a second (give or take) for God to figure out according to the counsel of His will
br.d
BTW: Did you know the average 8-bit microprocessor performs thousands of decisions per second?
I wonder if Calvin’s god would be upset with you for insulting his brain?
Perhaps you made a typo when you wrote “second” and you really meant “pico-second”
Or perhaps you were just making stuff up?? ;-D
rhutchin
people willfully and voluntarily do what God decrees.
br.d
Not quite!
Yes – they willfully do what Calvin’s god decrees – because Calvin’s god solely and exclusively determines what their will will be
However – appealing to “voluntary” is an appeal to “MERE” permission – and therefore an appeal to Libertarian functionality.
The doctrine asserts that WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is solely and exclusively determined by Calvin’s god alone.
He does not leave any WHATSOEVER UP TO the creature.
And it is LOGICALLY impossible to volunteer something that is not UP TO you to volunteer.
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “MERE”Y permits a person volunteer something! :-]
br.d writes, ‘However – appealing to “voluntary” is an appeal to “MERE” permission – and therefore an appeal to Libertarian functionality.”
Voluntary, as I use the term, means that no one is coerced to do that which he willingly does. As you noted, God “solely and exclusively determines what their will will be” – thus people are born with a sinful nature and willfully and voluntarily sin. Where does mere permission enter the equation given that God determined them to be totally depraved. How is total depravity consistent with Libertarian functionality? Dr. Flowers argues that people have LFW and he also argues that they can have LFW only because they are not totally depraved. So, given Dr. Flowers argument, total depravity is not consistent with Libertarian functionality.
br.d
However – appealing to “voluntary” is an appeal to “MERE” permission – and therefore an appeal to Libertarian functionality.
unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits a person to volunteer something :-]
rhutchin
Voluntary, as I use the term, means that no one is coerced to do that which he willingly does.
br.d
That’s called the fallacy of equivocating on a term.
When that is done in ignorance it represents a mistake
When that is done on purpose it represents strategically misleading language
The term “voluntary” is derived from the word “volunteer” which means “To offer”.
It is LOGICALLY impossible to “offer” something that is not UP TO YOU to offer.
And Calvin’s god who determined 100% of whatsoever comes to pass at the foundation of the world – does not leave anything Undetermined.
Therefore he leaves ZERO% of “Whatsoever comes to pass” UP TO YOU
Therefore there is no such thing as a person volunteering anything in Calvinism.
rhutchin: “Voluntary, as I use the term, means that no one is coerced to do that which he willingly does.”
br.d: “That’s called the fallacy of equivocating on a term.”
No. It’s called defining a term and doing so accurately. As you state, “The term “voluntary” is derived from the word “volunteer” which means “To offer”.” Yes, to offer without compulsion – and that is the meaning I give it.
Then, “It is LOGICALLY impossible to “offer” something that is not UP TO YOU to offer.”
Why not? Israel was to “offer” – willingly and voluntarily – sheep, goats, and bulls as sacrifices to God when God is the one who blessed them with the sheep, goats, and bulls and then commanded the sacrifices.
Then, “Therefore there is no such thing as a person volunteering anything in Calvinism.”
In Calvinism, an action, not coerced or compelled by force, is volunteered.
br.d
“It is LOGICALLY impossible to “offer” something that is not UP TO YOU to offer.”
rhutchin
Why not?
br.d
FIRSTLY:
I would like to ride on air-force one.
Can you volunteer it for me?
I hardly think so!
Nothing about air-force one is UP TO YOU
Therefore it is not UP TO YOU to volunteer
SECONDLY:
How many times will we catch you presupposing “MERE” permission which doesn’t exist for you?
And then later you claim you didn’t do so.
How many times have I provided the LOGIC of this for you?
We are talking about Exhaustive Divine Determinism here
1) Calvin’s god solely and exclusively determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass
2) Calvin’s god does not leave anything left UN-determined
3) Therefore ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass is left over for creation to determine.
4) Thus 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is solely and exclusively UP TO Calvin’s god.
5) Calvin’s god therefore does not leave anything UP TO the creature.
And it LOGICALLY follows you can’t volunteer/offer something that is not UP TO YOU to offer
rhutchin
God is the one who blessed them with the sheep, goats, and bulls ….
br.d
And leaves ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass concerning those creatures UP TO them.
Because 100% of whatsoever comes to pass concerning those creatures is solely and exclusively determined by Calvin’s god alone.
rhutchin
In Calvinism, an action, is not coerced or compelled by force, is volunteered.
br.d
compulsion or force has nothing to do with it.
Name one thing for me that nothing is UP TO YOU about – which you are “MERELY” permitted to volunteer to me?
Good luck with that! :-]
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits you to volunteer something!
Oh but I said that the last time didn’t?
And you strategically omitted that didn’t you!
Should we wonder why you omitted that??? :-]
br.d writes, “2) Calvin’s god does not leave anything left UN-determined
3) Therefore ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass is left over for creation to determine.”
Not according to Scripture. The death of Christ was determined yet we read Peter’s sermon, “[Christ], being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed;” Determinism did not crucify Christ; the Jews together with the Romans crucified Christ. They had a piece of the action.
rhutchin: “God is the one who blessed them with the sheep, goats, and bulls ….”
br.d: “And leaves ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass concerning those creatures UP TO them.”
The Jews raised the animals, selected the unblemished ones for sacrifice and took the animals to the priests. Thus, they also had a piece of the action.
Then, “Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits you to volunteer something!”
In the example of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10, God determined them to be used to judge Israel. Thereby, they were permitted (or decreed) to be God’s tool to judge Israel.
br.d
1) Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass
2) Calvin’s god does not leave anything left UN-determined
3) Therefore ZERO% of whatsoever comes to pass is left over for creation to determine.
rhutchin
Not according to Scripture.
br.d
So now you are denying “Calvin’s god ‘works’ (which you interpret as DETERMINES) ALL things at the foundation of the world?
Somehow I don’t think so! :-]
rhutchin
The Jews raised the animals
br.d
With Calvin’s god determining every impulse that would infallibly and thus irresistibly come to pass within the Jew’s brains
Oh thats right!
I keep forgetting – you want Calvin’s god to “MERELY” permit humans to make Libertarian choices for themselves :-]
rhutchin
And selected the unblemished ones for sacrifice
br.d
With Calvin’s god determining every impulse that would infallibly and thus irresistibly come to pass within the Jew’s brains
Oh thats right!
I keep forgetting – you want Calvin’s god to “MERELY” permit humans to make Libertarian choices for themselves :-]
rhutchin
and took the animals to the priests.
br.d
With Calvin’s god determining every impulse that would infallibly and thus irresistibly come to pass within the Jew’s brains
Oh thats right!
I keep forgetting – you want Calvin’s god to “MERELY” permit humans to make Libertarian free choices for themselves :-]
rhutchin
Thus, they also had a piece of the action.
br.d
All of which was solely and exclusively UP TO Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – leaving ZERO% UN-determined.
Oh thats right!
I keep forgetting – you want Calvin’s god to “MERELY” permit humans to make Libertarian free choices for themselves :-]
rhutchin
In the example of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10, God determined them to be used to judge Israel. Thereby, they were permitted (or decreed) to be God’s tool to judge Israel.
br.d
Sure!
1) Calvin’s god WILLED – DECREED – PERMITTED – the Assyrian’s to be/do [X]
2) Calvin’s god DID NOT WILL – DID NOT DECREE – DID NOT PERMIT – the Assyrians be/do [NOT X]
And that BTW is LOGICALLY coherent with Compatibilism:
In Exhaustive Determinism (aka Calvinism) whatsoever comes to pass – is granted both FREEDOM and PERMISSION
But only FREEDOM/PERMISSION that is COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Which rules out FREEDOM/PERMISSION that is NOT COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Thus whatsoever is NOT determined – is NOT FREE and NOT PERMITTED
Otherwise you are arguing for “Libertarian” human functionality – or what Calvin calls “MERE” permission.
BTW:
I happen to know Libertarian human functionality is what you secretly want! 😀
br.d: “So now you are denying “Calvin’s god ‘works’ (which you interpret as DETERMINES) ALL things at the foundation of the world?”
LOL!!! Nope. Nonetheless, imaginative.
br.d: “So now you are denying “Calvin’s god ‘works’ (which you interpret as DETERMINES) ALL things at the foundation of the world?”
Somehow I don’t think so :-]
rhutchin
LOL!!! Nope. Nonetheless, imaginative.
br.d
Right!
br.d writes, “Where it is infallibly decreed that a coin will land heads-up – is that coin permitted to falsify that infallible decree?”
If it is infallibly decreed that a coin will land heads-up, then the coin will land heads-up. To do otherwise must be granted by the one making the decree, but then the decree would have said otherwise. So, to ask, “is that coin permitted to falsify that infallible decree?” seems akin to asking if one can change the color of his skin or if a leopard can change his spots.
rhutchin
So, to ask, “is that coin permitted to falsify that infallible decree?” seems akin to asking if one can change the color of his skin or if a leopard can change his spots.
br.d
So can a leopard change its spots?
br.d writes, ‘So do you see how permission and freedom are interrelated?”
As the freedom, therefore, permission is granted by an authority, we avoid the issue of mere permission to which Calvin objected.
rhutchin
we avoid the issue of mere permission to which Calvin objected.
br.d
For you to say that is like Bill Clinton saying he avoids Xual relations with Monica Lewinski! ;-D
br.d writes, “How about this?
As part of the expression of Calvin’s god’s divine sovereignty – his decree is established as infallible and immutable – and as such its falsification is never permitted”
“…his decree is infallible and immutable…its falsification is not possible.”
rhutchin
“…his decree is infallible and immutable…its falsification is not possible.”
br.d
Correct!
But part of the reason it not possible (as you have occasionally stated it) is that it is “enforced”.
Therefore there is a form of permission and non-permission involved.
Just like the environment of a perfect vacuum to does not permit air.
The infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.
br.d writes, “Just like the environment of a perfect vacuum to does not permit air.
The infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.”
Just like the environment of a perfect vacuum does not, by definition, include air.
The infallible decree cannot, by definition, be falsified.
br.d
Just like the environment of a perfect vacuum to does not permit air.
The infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.”
rhutchin
Just like the environment of a perfect vacuum does not, by definition, include air.
The infallible decree cannot, by definition, be falsified.
br.d
Same thing in both cases
The Calvinist allows for permission language as part of Calvinist semantics
br.d
For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – it logically follows – [X] is permitted to come to pass.
roland
I would also add that the last part of your statement is preceded by God’s infallible decree. It is permitted because God has infallibly decreed to use the means of “permission” in a particular event.
Yes – that sounds very reasonable.
br.d writes, “How about this? “For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – it logically follows – [X] is permitted to come to pass.”
How about this, “For any [X] which God decrees to infallibly come to pass, we can say that God permitted [X] to come to pass.”
rhutchin
How about this,
“For any [X] which God decrees to infallibly come to pass, we can say that God permitted [X] to come to pass.”
br.d
No that won’t work – because of the “we can say” clause.
We have to differentiate between what “we say” and what LOGICALLY follows
Because what a person says does not necessarily LOGICALLY follow.
How about this,
“Any [X] which God decrees to infallibly come to pass, is equal to saying that God permitted [X] to to infallibly come to pass.”
The issue is not what logically follows but defining what is being said. That has been Roland’s point
rhutchin
The issue is not what logically follows but defining what is being said. That has been Roland’s point
br.d
The reason for avoiding that language is consistent with rational reasoning.
We don’t want to muddy up the waters with clauses which introduce ambiguity.
br.d writes, “we can’t just simply claim that Calvinism’s interpretation of scripture is canon. So we don’t question scripture But we do question a human interpretation.”
br.d in commenting on Calvinist theology never says that Calvinism’s interpretation of scripture is not canon. br.d doesn’t question scripture or the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture. He just expands on the implications of Scripture in his comments on Calvinism.
rhutchin – br.d in commenting on Calvinist theology never says that Calvinism’s interpretation of scripture is not canon.
br.d
Actually this is FALSE
Roland an I have had an ongoing discussion about making the Calvinist interpretation canon
You probably missed it
Which goes to show how you assume to speak with authority about things! :-]
rhutchin
br.d just expands on the implications of Scripture in his comments on Calvinism.
br.d
Not quite!
I expand on LOGICAL implications of Calvinism.
You probably don’t remember me saying I never make the silly mistake of conflating Calvinism with scripture! :-]
<<<< R HUTCHIN wrote: “Do non-Calvinists explain how God foreknows? No – it’s a mystery, they say. But they know for certain that God doesn’t know all things just because He preplans and causes them – it’s more mysterious than that.”
I guess R HUTCHIN either hasn’t interacted with a very wide cross-section of non-Calvinists, or is deliberately mis-representing them. Most non-calvinists I know, who are neither Molinists nor Open-Theists, offer one of two explanations for how God foreknows.
The first is that God is INHERENTLY OMNISICENT. In other words, He doesn’t need any other reason than the fact that He is God. That’s not a mystery, that’s an explanation.
The second is that God is OMNITEMPORAL. He is simultaneously present at all points in time, just as He is omnipresent at all points in space. Thus God does not move through time in a linear fashion as human beings do. He is ALREADY THERE in what we perceive and experience as our future. Therefore He is not looking down any “corridors of time” to find out what happens. He is already present at every event, every choice, every action.
So it's not that our explanation is "more mysterious". It's that our explanation gives greater glory to God's omniscience, since His exhaustive knowledge is not dependent upon Him preplanning and causing them, it is greater than that. That's how He also knows those things which WOULD have happened under different circumstances. Things which by definition did NOT happen, and which by definition He did not cause.
rhutchin should know better than to declare the Calvinist answer of how Calvin’s god foreknows.
John Calvin clearly states it:
-quote
He Foresees ONLY as a consequence of the decree
In other words – Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge of what [X] will be – is derived from knowing what he decreed [X] to be.
Thus, in Calvinism – NO decree of what [X] will be – equals NO divine CERTAINTY of what [X] will be.
So omniscience in Calvinism LACKS CONTENT of what [X] will be – where the decree of what [X] will be is absent.
Pastor Luz writes, “The first is that God is INHERENTLY OMNISICENT. In other words, He doesn’t need any other reason than the fact that He is God. That’s not a mystery, that’s an explanation.”
That is not an explanation. It is a presumption in the absence of an explanation – it remains a mystery because an explanation escapes them.
Then, “The second is that God is OMNITEMPORAL. He is simultaneously present at all points in time,…He is already present at every event, every choice, every action.”
Yes, and…..? That does not explain how God is omniscient. Is God simultaneous present and able to observe what happens in time thereby gaining knowledge? Apparently not because that is no different that looking down any “corridors of time” to find out what happens.
So, how does this really explain God’s omniscience? We do not know because Pastor Luz, despite saying that “Most non-calvinists I know, who are neither Molinists nor Open-Theists, offer one of two explanations for how God foreknows,” chose not to provide even one explanation. I guess it’s a secret among non-Calvinists.
Then, “our explanation gives greater glory to God’s omniscience, since His exhaustive knowledge is not dependent upon Him preplanning and causing them, it is greater than that. ”
That’s a joke, Right!!!! What explanation??
rhutchin
Pastor Luz writes, “The first is that God is INHERENTLY OMNISICENT. In other words, He doesn’t need any other reason than the fact that He is God. That’s not a mystery, that’s an explanation.”
br.d
Actually if we replace the word “Inherently” with “ESSENTIAL” we have the historical orthodox statement of divine omniscience.
Interestingly enough – Omniscience is NOT an ESSENTIAL attribute of Calvin’s god
Because as explained above – ESSENTIAL means – NEVER LACKING.
And Calvin’s god’s omniscience of what [X] will be -is lacking prior to the decree of what [X] will be.
Sorry that you are unable to understand what an explanation is, when it is staring you in the face. Apparently, the fact that God is God is simply not good enough for you. No, God must explain Himself further to you. As for the second explanation, you missed the point completely. Since God is present at all points in the future, He is not learning anything. He already knows. It is the Calvinist, every time, who is unable to explain away their irreconcilable contradictions, and so appeals to “mystery”, like Spurgeon’s parallel pillars that somehow meet above the clouds.
Pastor Luz writes, “Sorry that you are unable to understand what an explanation is, when it is staring you in the face. Apparently, the fact that God is God is simply not good enough for you. No, God must explain Himself further to you.”
No, I am asking you to explain it. To say that God is God explains nothing. Even you should understand that. All you offer is mystery as an explanation.
Then, “As for the second explanation, you missed the point completely. Since God is present at all points in the future, He is not learning anything. He already knows. ”
So, you exclude God observing events in time as the source of His knowledge. That’s good. So, can you explain how God can be said to be omniscient because He is present at all points in the future? Apparently not.
Then, “It is the Calvinist, every time, who is unable to explain away their irreconcilable contradictions, and so appeals to “mystery”, like Spurgeon’s parallel pillars that somehow meet above the clouds.”
Obviously, parallel pillars never meet – above the clouds or anywhere. You offer ad hominems – It is the Calvinist, every time, who is unable to explain away their irreconcilable contradictions, and so appeals to “mystery” – in the absence of arguments for whatever it is that you believe.
rhutchinNo, I am asking you to explain it. To say that God is God explains nothing. Even you should understand that. All you offer is mystery as an explanation.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
The Calvinist appeal to mystery is classified as an explanation
The non-Calvinist explanation is classified as an appeal to mystery! :-]
Well Spurgeon actually said that, so take it up with him. Lol, so when God says ” I AM THAT I AM”, R Hutch says, “No God, that’s not good enough, you need to explain WHY you are who you are!” Let me know how that works out for you. And God’s omnitemporality is a perfect explanation of His omniscience. Of course you don’t like it, because you want to insist God can only foreknow what He has ordained. Although you can’t explain why He is limited to that.
Pastor Loz
It is the Calvinist, every time, who is unable to explain away their irreconcilable contradictions, and so appeals to “mystery”, like Spurgeon’s parallel pillars that somehow meet above the clouds.
roland
When it comes to God’s knowledge God knows because He decreed it. Since you believe that Calvinists err when we appeal to mystery, you must know everything and you would never appeal to mystery? Christianity is a mysterious religion in the sense that God has not revealed all things to us. Unless you know all things and have no need for mystery?
<<>>
Which therefore means that calvi-god’s “infallible decree” not only directly contradicted its explicit law, but was GREATER than its explicit law. Thus pitting calvi-god against itself. Himself. Calvinists, take your pick. Your god is either:
(a) Confused
(b) Forgetful
(c) Conflcited
(d) Fickle
(e) Disingenuous
Which one do you feel gives it most glory?
Very nice post! :-]
What every astute observer will eventually notice concerning Calvin’s god – is that Calvin’s god always seems to do exactly what a Calvinist says.
Calvinist_A has Calvin’s god doing [X]
Calvinist_B has Calvin’s god doing [NOT X]
And MAGICALLY enough Calvin’s god can do both!
Which gives you a clue as to where Calvin’s god actually comes from! ;-D
R HUTCHIN wrote: “God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin”.
Since calvi-god unchangeably ordained, decreed, planned, rendered it certain, such that it could not have happened otherwise that people would sin, then the only one it can hold accountable for that sin is itself. Unless you want to redefine the word “accountable”. We know calvinists have their own dictionary so that would come as no surprise.
rhutchin: “God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin”.
br.d
What the Calvinist OBFUSCATES is 1000 times more critical than what he reveals.
In this case – in Calvinism – creatures can only do – what Calvin’s god decrees them to do.
What is decreed is PERMITTED
What is NOT decreed is NOT PERMITTED
So where people can ONLY sin – it where ONLY sin is PERMITTED.
Pastor Luz writes, “Since [God] unchangeably ordained, decreed, planned, rendered it certain, such that it could not have happened otherwise that people would sin, then the only one it can hold accountable for that sin is itself.”
Yet, that is the effect of a person born without faith. As we read in 1 John, people are selfish, covetous, and prideful and that is what they get from the world. God ordained this outcome when He withheld faith from people until they heard the gospel. Without faith and controlled by their selfish, covetous and prideful nature, people can do nothing but sin.
God explains accountability in Romans 2, where we read, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?” People look out for themselves by doing things that they condemn others for doing. Thus, they are accountable for their sin.
rhutchin
Yet, that is the effect of a person born without faith
br.d
Which is a red-herring
Because the state of nature at any instance in time is 100% meticulously determined by Calvin’s god.
Isn’t it interesting that Calvin’s god likes to blame others for what he himself does! :-]
R HUTCHIN wrote: “RHUTCHIN Pastor Loz writes, “And of course every single word of your article above was unchangeably ordained as part of “whatsoever comes to pass”, so no Calvinist can consistently object to it.”
Do you mean to say that God could have been ignorant of the article or of any word in it prior to its appearance in this forum? Could not God have ordained it for people to discuss and investigate much like the Bereans did upon hearing the things Paul preached?
This is a good example of calvinists either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what non-calvinists say. Where did I say or even suggest or imply that God could have been ignorant of the article? In typical calvinist style you are conflating foreknowing with ordaining. The point is this, if you object to a single thing that non-calvinists say, you are answering back to your god, which unchangeably ordained for them to say those things for its maximal glory. This is one reason why calvinism is such an utterly self-defeating philosophical theory.
Pastor Luz writes, “In typical calvinist style you are conflating foreknowing with ordaining.”
God foreknows that which He ordains. In Ephesians 1, we read: “God works all things according to the counsel of his will,…” Certainly, that which God works (or ordains) He knows unless you want to claim that God is forgetful and does not recall what He works.
Duh. Of course God foreknows those things He ordains. No-one is saying He doesn’t.
Pastor Luz writes, “Duh. Of course God foreknows those things He ordains. No-one is saying He doesn’t.”
You said that God was inherently omniscient meaning that He foreknows events He will ordain before He ordains them. Are you now saying that God is also omniscient because He foreknows events because He ordains them?
Let me try and make it really simple. God foreknows all things. Those He foreordains. Those He doesn’t. Even those that never happen. Hope that helps.
Pastor Luz writes, “Let me try and make it really simple. God foreknows all things. Those He foreordains. Those He doesn’t. Even those that never happen. Hope that helps.”
OK. That’s a good Calvinist explanation.
Then you don’t understand Calvinism. Did calvi-god unchangeably ordain you to spell my name wrong, for its maximal glory?
Pastor Luz writes, “Let me try and make it really simple. God foreknows all things. Those He foreordains. Those He doesn’t. Even those that never happen. Hope that helps.”
rhutchin
OK. That’s a good Calvinist explanation.
br.d
Cmon rhutchin – there’s no sense in lowering yourself to lying!
You know very well Calvin’s god doesn’t foreknow those things he doesn’t foreordain!
John Calvin states it clearly
He foresees as a CONSEQUENCE of the decree
No decree = no foresee
br.d writes, “You know very well Calvin’s god doesn’t foreknow those things he doesn’t foreordain!”
God foreknows those things He ordains and those things that He could ordain but will not. If God chooses not to ordain something, He knows what he chooses not to ordain.
br.d
Cmon rhutchin – there’s no need to fall into lying
You know very well Calvin’s god doesn’t foreknow those things he doesn’t foreordain!”
rhutchin
God foreknows those things He ordains
br.d
Logically POSTERIOR to his ordaining them
He has no CERTAINTY of what [X] will be – prior to determining what [X] will be
rhutchin
and those things that He could ordain but will not.
br.d
Prior to his decree of what they WILL BE – he foreknows what they “COULD” be
But he does not foreknow what they “WILL” be
Therefore your statement that he foreknows what [X] WILL be – without decreeing what [X] WILL be is FALSE
rhutchin
If God chooses not to ordain something, He knows what he chooses not to ordain.
br.d
If he doesn’t then his brain is a few french fries short of a happy meal! :-]
rhutchin
God foreknows that which He ordains
br.d
In other words – Calvin’s god foreknowledge is INFORMED by what he decrees.
Pastor Loz was correct
William Lane Craig explains:
R HUTCHIN wrote: “There is a time and place for those whom God will save to be given a new heart and then faith to believe in Christ”. Since calvi-god does not give this new heart and faith to the elect as soon as they are born, this shows that calvi-god PREFERS them to continue in sin and blindness up until that point.
rhutchin wrote: “There is a time and place for those whom God will save to be given a new heart and then faith to believe in Christ”
br.d
What the Calvinist OBFUSCATES is 1000 times more critical than what he reveals.
In this case John Calvin provides what RH obfuscates
John Calvin
-quote
if he [Calvin’s god] has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time.
If he has DOOMED US TO DEATH, it is vain for us to fight against it. (Institutes)
And Calvin’s god “Dooms to death” the vast majority of the human race
For his good pleasure of course! :-]
Pastor Luz writes, “Since [God] does not give this new heart and faith to the elect as soon as they are born, this shows that [God] PREFERS them to continue in sin and blindness up until that point.”
What does Paul tell us? “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” So, until a person hears the gospel, he cannot have faith. Without faith, a person continues in sin and blindness. Is it your intent to deny this?
Then, in regard to the preaching of the gospel, Paul then says, “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,” So blindness is part of God’s plan.
rhutchin
So, until a person hears the gospel, he CANNOT have faith. Without faith, a person continues in sin and blindness.
br.d s
What the Calvinist OBFUSCATES is 1000 times more critical than what he reveals.
In this case – a person CANNOT have faith – because Calvin’s god doesn’t PERMIT the person to have faith.
///// Rhutchin wrote: Pastor Luz writes, “Since [God] does not give this new heart and faith to the elect as soon as they are born, this shows that [God] PREFERS them to continue in sin and blindness up until that point.”
What does Paul tell us? “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” So, until a person hears the gospel, he cannot have faith. Without faith, a person continues in sin and blindness. Is it your intent to deny this?
Then, in regard to the preaching of the gospel, Paul then says, “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,” So blindness is part of God’s plan. /////
A perfect illustration of how Calvinists confuse god with the god of this world (their god). Thank you rhutchin for confirming that your god prefers that the elect continue in sin during the period before they are zapped with the magic calvi-dust, than that they repent. Your god surely does love sin!
ROLAND wrote: “I reject libertarian freewill unless the exception that humans will act freely according to their sinful nature is considered. Yes, I believe compatibilist freedom is the most biblical concept we have available to us today.”
Calvinists love their oxymorons 🙂 Here is yours – “act freely according to their sinful nature”
For the Calvinist – acting freely according to one’s nature – is nothing more than one’s nature being meticulously controlled by Calving’s god. And if Calvin’s god does not grant FREEDOM for what he meticulously controls – then he is a house divided against itself.
Where [X] is decreed to infallibly come to pass – [X] is granted FREEDOM to come to pass.
Calvin’s god does not grant FREEDOM outside of what he decrees.
Nothing more and nothing less is PERMITTED.
Thus in Calvinism – Adam NOT eating the fruit was NOT PERMITTED
Pastor Luz writes, “Calvinists love their oxymorons �� Here is yours – “act freely according to their sinful nature””
People without faith freely sin and do so because they desire their sin. At least, you seem to be in agreement with Martin Luther and his argument in “Bondage of the Will.”
Of course, Pastor Luz cannot define “libertarian free will” as it applies to people without faith, and he doesn’t otherwise engage in any reasonable argument that explains his belief, if he even knows what he believes.
Lol, all you did was to perpetuate the oxymoron further and kick the can down the road. If all they can do is sin, if it is impossible for them to repent, they are not “freely choosing” to sin. They are doing what their divinely ordained sinful nature is dictating they do. Appealing to their desires doesn’t get you out of the corner, since their desires have also been unchangeably ordained and they cannot desire any differently.
Bulls-eye!
They are NOT PERMITTED to be/do otherwise
Pastor Luz writes, “all you did was to perpetuate the oxymoron further and kick the can down the road. If all they can do is sin, if it is impossible for them to repent, they are not “freely choosing” to sin. ”
Poor Pastor Luz, he has nothing to offer to explain it otherwise. However, you adamantly join Martin Luther is saying that free will is a lie. I’m OK with that.
Red herring. We are talking about the Calvinist lie that in their philosophical theory people “freely choose” to sin, when that is all they have been unchangeably ordained to do and unchangeably ordained to want to do, by calvi-god.
Pastor Luz writes, “We are talking about the Calvinist lie that in their philosophical theory people “freely choose” to sin,…”
Calvinists say that people without faith are totally depraved governed by their selfish, covetous and prideful natures and because of this, they can only choose to sin, and this they do by compulsion of their nature and not coercion by God. Pastor Luz calls this a lie. So, what does he believe? Apparently nothing except that he doesn’t believe the Calvinists.
rhutchin
Calvinists say that people without faith are totally depraved governed by their selfish, covetous and prideful natures
br.d
Here is wisdom
Calvinist statements are designed to OBFUSCATE more than they reveal
In this case – we have the TRUE “T” in the 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.
rhutchin wrote:
Of course, Pastor Luz cannot define “libertarian free will” as it applies to people without faith, and he doesn’t otherwise engage in any reasonable argument that explains his belief, if he even knows what he believes.
roland wrote:
Great point! Non-calvinists don’t have a definition for people without faith (libertarian freewill), at least not a definition that is biblical. Also, my experience with non-calvinists is that they tend to be against Calvinism so much that they will say anything just to disagree with Calvinism, even beliefs that are clearly against Scripture.
roland wrote:
Great point! Non-calvinists don’t have a definition for people without faith (libertarian freewill), at least not a definition that is biblical.
br.d
WHAT????
After all the data I presented to you??
Did it totally go over year head?
BTW: Freedom – whether Libertarian or Compatilibist – exist with or without faith.
The nature of Freedom is the same either way.
br.d
BTW: Freedom – whether Libertarian or Compatilibist – exist with or without faith.
The nature of Freedom is the same either way
roland
So when a sinner is born again their freedom or freewill does not change? It remains the same even though they are born again? It sounds like you are saying that our freedom to obey God is the same regardless of whether a sinner is born again or not. Where is that taught in the Bible?
br.d
BTW: Freedom – whether Libertarian or Compatilibist – exist with or without faith.
The nature of Freedom is the same either way
roland
So when a sinner is born again their freedom or freewill does not change?
br.d
Let me explain it to you.
In Calvinism – you have Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
And the TYPE of Freedom you have is called Compatibilist Freedom
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that freedom is COMPATIBLE with determinism
So with Calvinism you have the following:
1) You have Freedom to be/do what is divinely determined
2) You DO NOT HAVE Freedom to be/do otherwise – because that Freedom would NOT BE COMPATIBLE with Determinism
Accordingly – what kind or degree of faith you have is irrelevant to that.
No matter what kind of faith you have – you still have COMPATIBILIST Freedom because you still have Determinism.
So again you have Freedom to be/do what is divinely determined
You DO NOT HAVE Freedom to be/do otherwise – because that Freedom would NOT BE COMPATIBLE with Determinism
Now lets look at Libertarian
Libertarian Freedom is defined as:
1) The ability to choose among a range of options
2) Those options NOT determined by someone else or by factors outside of your control
1 & 2 above are Freedoms which are LOGICALLY EXCLUDED by Determinism
Now whether or not you have faith – does not change the nature of that Freedom either.
It simply changes the options that are available to you.
And one significant increase in Freedom you have – is the Freedom to be the DETERMINER of your choices.
br.d writes, “BTW: Freedom – whether Libertarian or Compatilibist – exist with or without faith.
The nature of Freedom is the same either way”
Without faith, a person can only reject salvation; their is no ability to choose salvation. With faith, a person can accept or reject salvation and given that option, will always choose to accept salvation.
br.d writes, “BTW: Freedom – whether Libertarian or Compatilibist – exist with or without faith.
The nature of Freedom is the same either way”
rhutchin
Without faith, a person can only reject salvation
br.d
Not quite!
In Calvinism – what a person accepts or rejects is SOLELY DETERMINED by what Calvin’s god meticulously determines.
Calvin’s god can meticulously determine you to accept [X] – or reject [X] with or without the attribute of faith.
Ditto for the rest :-]
br.d
2) Those options NOT determined by someone else or by factors outside of your control
roland
Here’s your first mistake “by factors outside of your control.” There are many factors outside of our control. The most important being man’s nature which we are born with. You did not choose to be born with a sin nature but because of Adam’s sin you are a sinner. This means as humans we will always choose to sin or our choices are at least tainted by sin.
br.d
And one significant increase in Freedom you have – is the Freedom to be the DETERMINER of your choices.
roland
Sorry but Scripture teaches otherwise. We are not the determiners of our choices.
James 4:13-17
13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow [h]we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; 14 whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.” 16 But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
Take note of verse 15, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.” Make all the decisions or determinations you want but they will only come to fruition if the Lord wills.
br.d
2) Those options NOT determined by someone else or by factors outside of your control
roland
Here’s your first mistake “by factors outside of your control.” There are many factors outside of our control.
br.d
Firstly:
In the case of a divine being there are no factors outside of his control
Therefore this attribute still stands.
Secondly:
This is question begging which simply assumes determinism
In this case it assumes (according to Determinism) that a being’s nature functions as a DETERMINATIVE factor outside of that beings control – which my first point (above) shows to be fallacious.
Since it is the divine image of the divine being to be able to make decisions that are not determined by factors outside of his control – including the factors of nature – then an omnipotent being is powerful enough to create a creature (i.e. man) in that same image.
Therefore your question begging fails.
roland
Sorry but Scripture teaches otherwise. We are not the determiners of our choices.
br.d
That is hilarious!
I just got done talking with a staunch Calvinist who insists man is the determiner of his choices!
His reading of scripture is the opposite of yours
And you both can’t be right! :-]
And besides that – I have a suspicion that when we start talking about sinful choices – you’re going to attribute those choices to man rather than to Calvin’s god.
Its consistent for many things to be TRUE one minute and FALSE the next for Calvinists! :-]
br.dbr.d
That is hilarious!
I just got done talking with a staunch Calvinist who insists man is the determiner of his choices!
His reading of scripture is the opposite of yours
And you both can’t be right! :-]
roland
I should clarify that we do make real choices but ultimately it is God who works all things after the counsel of His own will.
Psalm 33:10-11
10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever,
The plans of His heart to all generations.
You can argue and believe all you want that libertarian freewill exist but Scripture teaches the opposite. I understand it is an argument made from logic and philosophy, that is libertarian freewill, but the Bible never speaks of libertarian freewill. The Bible teaches us that God’s decree and providence determine what will come to pass, but this necessity does not force men to make particular choices contrary to their preferences any more than God is forced to be good, though he is necessarily good. God is the only truly free being, only He can do whatever He pleases not us. You can have the last word as I will not respond to any further comments. I try to avoid online discussions as they seem to go nowhere. I am not likely to convince you of the biblical truth of God’s sovereignty and you are not likely to convince me that man has libertarian freewill because I don’t see it in Scripture, blessings!
Psalm 115:3
But our God is in heaven;
He does whatever He pleases.
br.dbr.d
That is hilarious!
I just got done talking with a staunch Calvinist who insists man is the determiner of his choices!
His reading of scripture is the opposite of yours
And you both can’t be right! :-]
roland
I should clarify that we do make real choices but ultimately it is God who works all things after the counsel of His own will.
br.d
Sure! Every Calvinist asserts that
While holding his hands over his eyes so that he doesn’t have to acknowledge the LOGICAL consequences which come with it. Logical consequences which he can’t possibly live with.
For example – the consequence of his brain not being permitted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter. :-]
roland
I should clarify that WE do make real choices but ultimately it is God who works all things after the counsel of His own will.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
We don’t REALLY make real choices because no such REALITY exists for us.
But we treat it *AS-IF* it is does
Because
1) We need to PERCEIVE ourselves as having multiple options from which to choose
2) We need to PERCEIVE ourselves as the DETERMINER of a choice.
Both of which according to our doctrine – exist only as PREDESTINED ILLUSIONS.
A day in the life of a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system! :-]
br.d
Both of which according to our doctrine – exist only as PREDESTINED ILLUSIONS.
A day in the life of a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system! :-]
roland
You can get your doctrine from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy while I will take mine from the word of God. I’ve quoted this verse to you before where the Psalmist is teaching us the truth that while humans work to build their house it is in vain unless the Lord is building behind us. You call it double-minded thinking, Calvinists call it seeking to obey God while relying on Him to grant us the grace to obey Him. There are many Bible verses that teach this truth that apart from God we cannot do nothing. But to you this is not philosophically or logically coherent so you reject it not on the basis of God’s Word but philosophy and logic. This is why I question if you are a Christian because you make all your arguments from philosophy and logic, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is your source of authority.
Psalm 127:1
Unless the Lord builds the house,
They labor in vain who build it;
Unless the Lord guards the city,
The watchman stays awake in vain.
If you want to call this sort of thinking double-minded, that is making my own choices to build my house while relying on the Lord to ultimately build my house, I’m fine with it, I see nothing wrong with what the Bible clearly teaches us. The Bible doesn’t excuse us from the responsibility of building our houses and watching over our cities just because it is ultimately God who does the building and the watching.
roland
You can get your doctrine from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy while I will take mine from the word of God.
br.d
Thus making the word of god is SELF-CONTRADICTING and IRRATIONAL :-]
Roland
I’ve quoted this verse to you before where the Psalmist is teaching us the truth that while humans work to build their house it is in vain unless the Lord is building behind us.
br.d
building behind us????
Determining every impulse that will come to pass within your brain and making those impulses IRRESISTIBLE is what the doctrine stipulates.
And for you that is what the Bible calls “building behind us”
That’s a very canon interpretation Roland! :-]
Roland
You call it double-minded thinking, Calvinists call it seeking to obey God while relying on Him to grant us the grace to obey Him.
br.d
Here you have no less than 3 blatant contradictions
1) In Calvinism – human beings don’t “seek” anything
Because the process of “seeking” LOGICALLY ENTAILS a degree of creaturely autonomy that does not exist for humans within your system.
2) In Calvinism – human beings “relying on him” also LOGICALLY entails a degree of creaturely autonomy which does not exist in the doctrine.
3) On the doctrine there is no such thing as NOT obeying him.
Your doctrine forces you to need creaturely functionality which does not exist for you!
The only way you can live with your doctrine – is to treat it *AS-IF* it is FALSE while claiming it TRUE.
And that is the quintessential definition of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS :-]
br.d
Your doctrine forces you to need creaturely functionality which does not exist for you!
The only way you can live with your doctrine – is to treat it *AS-IF* it is FALSE while claiming it TRUE.
And that is the quintessential definition of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS :-]
roland
More back and forth that gets us nowhere. You rely on logic and philosophy, you subject the word of God to logical and philosophical tests, that is your authority. My authority is the word of God. You are not proving anything but just reaffirming your presupposition that in order for something to be true it must be logically and philosophically coherent. According to you, God’s Word is not logically and philosophically coherent, therefore it must be false. This is why I question whether you are a Christian. This is my last post to you as you will probably post a syllogism that shows my beliefs are incoherent and false and I am okay with that as I believe what God’s Word says not what is logically and philosophically coherent. Thanks for responding, blessings.
br.d
Your doctrine forces you to need creaturely functionality which does not exist for you!
The only way you can live with your doctrine – is to treat it *AS-IF* it is FALSE while claiming it TRUE.
And that is the quintessential definition of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS :-]
roland
More back and forth that gets us nowhere.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
“Getting somewhere” for me – means accepting Calvinism’s DOUBLE-MINDED thinking.
As long as you are not willing to do that – we get nowhere.
The fact that you have to treat your doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE – while claiming it TRUE
And your brain has become totally OBLIVIOUS to it
Provides an interesting example of how the human brain can learn to cope with a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system. :-]
Roland
. According to you, God’s Word is not logically and philosophically coherent,
br.d
You have it exactly backwards Roland
IRRATIONAL thinking concerning any data – will always resolve to an IRRATIONAL conclusion concerning that data. Whether that data is scripture or not does not change that fact.
The Bible doesn’t MAGICALLY alter your brain so that your reading of it is CANON.
The process the Calvinist follows however – is to believe every word – by Calvinist sources.
And when your brain bumps up against something that is IRRATIONAL – you simply MAKE-BELIEVE its not IRRATIONAL and BLITHEFULLY go on your merry way.
You can’t accept any LOGICAL examination of Calvinist interpretations.
Because doing so would force you to question them.
And questioning anything you’ve been taught – produces a such a sense of mental anguish – that you simply don’t allow it.
br.d
IRRATIONAL thinking concerning any data – will always resolve to an IRRATIONAL conclusion concerning that data. Whether that data is scripture or not does not change that fact.
roland
That is not what I am objecting to. I am objecting to you subjecting Scripture to logic and philosophy. I do believe in what you are saying about irrational thinking but the Bible is not a rational book, it is a revelation of the Triune God. This does not mean that it is irrational but the test of its veracity is not rationality it is what God says in it. This is the road to which you and I depart. We have different presuppositions.
br.d
The process the Calvinist follows however – is to believe every word – by Calvinist sources.
roland
There are is a wide variety of Calvinists and I don’t believe every word by Calvinist sources. As an example some Calvinists are theonomists, I am not. Some Calvinists hold to a strict classical theist position, I do not. Some Calvinists are postmillennial, I am not. This is a false generalization of Calvinists.
br.d
And when your brain bumps up against something that is IRRATIONAL – you simply MAKE-BELIEVE its not IRRATIONAL and BLITHEFULLY go on your merry way.
roland
Something is irrational than it is irrational. I don’t make-believe anything. But I hold to beliefs that are Scriptural first, and if they are judged to be “irrational” I will examine them. If an atheist comes to me and says, “belief in God is an irrational position” and proves to me by reason, logic, science, or philosophy that it is an irrational position, should I embrace it? Or do I believe what the Bible says about the existence of God? As a Christian I hold Scripture over and above reason, logic, science, or philosophy. I will believe what God says in Scripture first, then all other fields of knowledge follow.
br.d
You can’t accept any LOGICAL examination of Calvinist interpretations.
Because doing so would force you to question them.
roland
I do accept them but I don’t believe them. I read criticism of Calvinism regularly as well as I listening to critics. I have come to conclusions regarding Calvinism but I am always open to the idea that they could be false. I just have not been shown by Scripture that they are false. Until then, I proceed as a Christian who holds to Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture. Not LOGICAL proof but SCRIPTURAL proof is what I look for as a Christian.
The apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians that God works all things after the counsel of HIs own will, I believe it, I don’t subject it to a rational or philosophical test.
Jesus said in John 6:44 that no man can come to me unless the Father draws him and Jesus will raise that man up at the last day, I believe it. I don’t subject Jesus’s statement to a rational or logical or philosophical test to prove its veracity. It’s true because Jesus said it.
I don’t subject Scripture to rational, scientific, philosophical, or logical test because that would mean there is a source higher than Scripture. Scripture is the highest source for the Christian.
br.d
And questioning anything you’ve been taught – produces a such a sense of mental anguish – that you simply don’t allow it.
roland
I wasn’t taught Calvinism. I was saved in an Arminian church and stayed there for 8 years. I was taught that man had freewill, God was sovereign, man is a sinner but he can still make good decisions, we are not really fallen, God did not choose people for salvation, God elects us because we first elect God, God did not predestine us but looked into the future and predestined those who chose him out of their freewill. I was a proponent of freewill for 8 years. But I had serious question about verses that taught election, God’s sovereignty over man, and many other issues related to freewill. I always took my pastor’s explanation and interpretation about the verses.
Then I heard a Reformed theologian teach about God’s sovereignty, election, predestination, etc. I read several books including RC Sproul’s Chosen By God and I became convinced that Reformed theology is a more biblical form of Christianity.
I have no mental anguish in questioning anything I’ve been taught. None. Sadly, I think it is rather amusing that you think you can rationalize Christianity and that you think man has freewill, which is no where taught in Scripture, and that man is autonomous. You argue as if God is beholden to man’s will, must wait on man to act, and would never “violate” man’s freewill. But Scripture teaches quite the opposite of what you believe. No frustration or anguish on my end.
br.d
IRRATIONAL thinking concerning any data – will always resolve to an IRRATIONAL conclusion concerning that data. Whether that data is scripture or not does not change that fact.
roland
That is not what I am objecting to. I am objecting to you subjecting Scripture to logic and philosophy.
br.d
WRONG!
You can’t discern the difference between scripture and an INTERPRETATION of scripture
Your brain AUTO-MAGICALLY makes them one and the same thing.
And in the process you raise a human interpretation up on a pedestal an make it CANON.
While you claim you are not doing that of course! :-]
Roland
I think it is rather amusing that you think you can rationalize Christianity
br.d
INTERPRETATION
I think it rather amusing that you think the God scripture is RATIONAL
Roland
and that you think man has freewill
br.d
The very freedom you assume you have – every time you PERCEIVE yourself as having multiple options from which to choose.
And the very freedom you assume you have – every time you PERCEIVE yourself as the DETERMINER of a choice.
Welcome to Calvinism’s DOUBLE-MINDED world! :-]
Oh and I forgot a 3rd freedom which doesn’t exist in your doctrine
The freedom you assume you have – when you PERCEIVE your brain as being permitted the function of Determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
All 3 of those freedoms are LOGICALLY EXCLUDED by your doctrine.
And yet you assume you have all 3 of them.
So on this topic you’d do well to take the log out of your own eye first :-]
Rhutchin: “Calvinists say that people without faith are totally depraved governed by their selfish, covetous and prideful natures and because of this, they can only choose to sin,…”
That’s funny, because farther down in the comments he says: “If Satan does not blind a person, then the person will see the light of the gospel.”
So apparently, in Calvinism, the “totally depraved” person can ONLY choose to sin (to reject God) … and yet they would see the light of the gospel (and believe) if Satan didn’t blind them.
Interesting!
Make up your minds, Calvinists!
Heather – if you aren’t familiar with it – this is what I call Calvinism’s AS-IF thinking process
Consider these two statements
John Calvin
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.”
Here Calvin understands that in a world in which every event is RENDERED-CERTAIN – it is logically impossible for any event to happen other than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN. In other words – Calvin understands – it is logically impossible for events to happen “one way or another”.
And yet he instructs his disciples into a thinking process – whereby he treats events AS IF they can happen one way or another.
So in this case Calvin has a proposition which he holds to be TRUE
That every event which comes to pass is FIXED IN THE PAST and RENDERED-CERTAIN to only come out one way
And this proposition for Calvin – is the most SACRED proposition in the universe
And yet he instructs his disciples to treat this SACRED proposition AS -IF is is FALSE
John Calvin
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, AS THOUGH nothing were determined about any part.”
Here again – Calvin understands this as logically impossible.
Here again – Calvin has a SACRED Proposition – that whatsoever comes to pass is DETERMINED IN EVERY PART at the foundation of the world.
And yet he instructs his disciples into the same AS-IF thinking process.
In this case – the SACRED proposition – is that all things are FIXED IN THE PAST and DETERMINED IN EVERY PART
And yet once again – he instructs his disciples to treat this SACRED proposition AS -IF is is FALSE
If you learn to look for it – you will find AS IF thinking is ubiquitous in Calvinist statements.
And that is what you observed in rhuthcin’s statements.
Rhutchin knows the SACRED proposition – that in Calvinism – creatures are NOT FREE and NOT PERMITTED to be/do otherwise than what Calvin’s god DETERMINES IN EVERY PART.
But the Calvinist – following John Calvin’s instructions – treat their SACRED proposition AS-IF it is FALSE.
AS-IF thinking – is the strategy the Calvinist uses to retain a sense of NORMALCY and a sense that his doctrine aligns with the general narrative scripture.
But it is essentially DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
And that’s why Calvinist language is a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK
heather writes, “So apparently, in Calvinism, the “totally depraved” person can ONLY choose to sin (to reject God) … and yet they would see the light of the gospel (and believe) if Satan didn’t blind them.”
People are born without faith – therefore they are totally depraved. They continue in that condition until they hear the gospel. Normally, hearing the gospel would result in a person receiving faith and that faith would negate total depravity.
However, we observe that some people hear the gospel but do not change. Paul explains what is happening, “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,”
rhutchin,
Every time that you state that people are born without faith, that just shows that you have no clue what faith even is.
Everyone is born without any kind of intellect, and one needs intellect to make decisions. Faith requires an intellectual decision. It’s your choice to have faith, or not to have faith, by decision making, by your intellect of knowledge given.
Faith requires KNOWLEDGE given. It’s NOT A GIFT, as you keep telling people. GRACE is the gift thru YOUR INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE decision making, which we call FAITH.
Hebrews 11:1 describes what faith is…it is KNOWING that you are going to get what you are “WAITING” for.
That’s what faith is. It’s not a gift.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes, “Every time that you state that people are born without faith, that just shows that you have no clue what faith even is.”
Paul writes, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” The “faith” to which Paul refers is faith in Christ, and the only source of that faith is the word of Christ (i.e., the Scriptures). No one is born with this faith and it can only be gotten through hearing the gospel (i.e., the word of Christ).
One of us does not know what faith is.
In Calvinism – humans do not “choose” anything according to the NORMATIVE sense of the word “choice”.
The NORMATIVE sense of the term “choice” LOGICALLY entails a minimum of 2 possible options [A] and [NOT A] which both exist as OPEN and thus available from which to select.
Calvinism LOGICALLY entails a CLOSED future – where only one single options exists as available.
That one single option which is RENDERED-CERTAIN to exist
All ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES (See principle of Alternative Possibilities) are mutually excluded
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god is the ONLY being who has multiple options OPEN to him – from which to select.
He does not grant multople options to be available to the creature.
Therefore there is no such thing as creaturely choice – in the NORMATIVE sense of the word.
The “choice” a Calvinist has – is the same “choice” a robot has.
The “choice” to follow its program.
It CANNOT do otherwise
But that is not the NORMATIVE conception of the term “choice”
What Calvinists have – is not “choice”
What Calvinists have are INCLINATIONS
And Every INCLINATION is RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world
And the Calvinist has NO CHOICE in the matter of what INCLINATIONS are RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
br.d writes, “The NORMATIVE sense of the term “choice” LOGICALLY entails a minimum of 2 possible options [A] and [NOT A] which both exist as OPEN and thus available from which to select.”
Of course, the normative sense is by presumption.
br.d writes, “The NORMATIVE sense of the term “choice” LOGICALLY entails a minimum of 2 possible options [A] and [NOT A] which both exist as OPEN and thus available from which to select.”
rhutchin
Of course, the normative sense is by presumption.
br.d
Not any more than the NON-NORMATIVE sense would be. :-]
The NORMATIVE sense is called NORMATIVE – because it is represents the sense held by the preponderance of human beings.
That’s why its called NORMATIVE! :-]
But the fact that the Calvinist doesn’t define creaturely “choice” in the NORMATIVE sense – tells us that he doesn’t interpret the word “choice” in the NORMATIVE sense – when he reads it in scripture! :-]
br.d writes, “Not any more than the NON-NORMATIVE sense would be. :-]”
Exactly.
Then, “The NORMATIVE sense is called NORMATIVE – because it is represents the sense held by the preponderance of human beings.
That’s why its called NORMATIVE! :-]”
A billion flies can’t be wrong. It’s still by presumption.
Then, “But the fact that the Calvinist doesn’t define creaturely “choice” in the NORMATIVE sense – tells us that he doesn’t interpret the word “choice” in the NORMATIVE sense – when he reads it in scripture! :-]”
The Calvinist defines choice to reflect one’s desires. Ten billion flies agree with that.
rhutchin
A billion flies can’t be wrong. It’s still by presumption.
br.d
A billion NORMATIVE flies can be wrong.
And a billion NON-NORMATIVE flies can also be wrong.
Being wrong therefore does not differentiate between the two.
What does differentiate between the two is – one is NORMATIVE – while the other is NON-NORMATIVE :-]
But the fact that the Calvinist doesn’t define creaturely “choice” in the NORMATIVE sense – tells us that he doesn’t interpret the word “choice” in the NORMATIVE sense – when he reads it in scripture! :-]”
rhutchin
The Calvinist defines choice to reflect one’s desires. Ten billion flies agree with that.
br.d
Firstly – I don’t think there are ten billion Calvinists.
But in any case – ten billion flies is a red herring anyway – because it doesn’t omit the fact that the Calvinist’s definition is NON-NORMATIVE.
Now since you mentioned desires – let us examine them to see how they work exactly the same way as options work in Calvinism
1) A human desire for [A] can be supernaturally RENDERED-CERTAIN
2) A human desire for [NOT A] can be supernaturally RENDERED-CERTAIN
But they cannot BOTH be RENDERED-CERTAIN because in such case they would be self-canceling
And we would have a self-canceling decree.
Only one desire can be RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And they can’t be left OPEN to be determined by a created entity.
And in Calvinism – humans have NO CHOICE in the matter of what human desires are RENDERED-CERTAIN.
So what the Calvinist has is NO CHOICE in that which reflects one’s desires
And that NO CHOICE ends up being what the Calvinist wants to call “choice”.
This gives us the opportunity to look into Calvinism’s NON-NORMATIVE world
And its NON-NORMATIVE use of words :-]
Rhutchin: “… They continue in that condition until they hear the gospel. Normally, hearing the gospel would result in a person receiving faith…”
And yet in other places he’s said that it takes faith to hear/respond to the Gospel. So in one place, it’s that hearing the Gospel leads to faith, and in another it’s that faith leads to hearing the Gospel.
Once again, make up your minds, Calvinists.
Calvinists consistently talk out of both sides of their mouths and then wonder why people don’t trust what they say.
(And Br.d., you’ve always done a great job pointing out the As-If of Calvinism. Sadly, many Christians don’t realize Calvinists use this as-if speak, and so they think the Calvinists are talking about real options, real choices, real decisions. And this is what sucks so many people in.)
Also, I address the “veil” farther down in the comment section, basically saying that the “veiled Gospel” (2 Corinthians 4:3) seems to be explained in 2 Corinthians 3:14 (I only recently just found this and am contemplating it). It seems to be about the fact that the Gospel (salvation through faith in Jesus) is veiled to the Jews when they read the old covenant in the Old Testament. Paul is saying that the truth of salvation in Jesus (the new covenant) cannot be understood by reading the old covenant (the Law). And that’s when Paul says “but whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” It’s not that they had no ability to believe in Jesus because God caused the Gospel to be veiled so that they wouldn’t believe; it’s that they can’t find the truth of salvation in Christ if all they keep reading/believing/following is the old covenant. But if they will willingly turn to Jesus, they will find the truth. (It’s “turn to Jesus first, and then the veil is taken away,” not “the veil is taken away from the elect so that they can turn to Jesus,” as Calvinists would say.) This has nothing to do with the Calvinist idea of predestination/election. It’s just about where the truth of salvation in Christ is found. And it can be found by anyone.
Heather
Br.d., you’ve always done a great job pointing out the As-If of Calvinism. Sadly, many Christians don’t realize Calvinists use this as-if speak, and so they think the Calvinists are talking about real options, real choices, real decisions. And this is what sucks so many people in.)
br.d
Yes agreed Heather!
If you watch this presentation on Youtube by Dr. William Luzt on DOUBLE-SPEAK – you will hear him say it is a learned behavior pattern
The mind becomes conditioned to instantaneously flip back in order have desired things which are contradictory.
DOUBLE-SPEAK is an integral part of the Calvinist language mode
And the human mind is very flexible and mold-able
It becomes conditioned by what it is consistently exposed to.
Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK is pretty much the norm with every Calvinist ministry
So young Calvinists who are exposed to it who are serious about Calvinism – eventually adopt it as a mode of thinking
It become automatic – and the mind is un-ware it is operating in DOUBLE-THINK
And that explains why Calvinists are antagonistic to logic
And predisposed towards paradoxical thinking.
It allows them to have their cake and eat it! :-]
Youtube:
The title is: William Lutz – Doublespeak
Heather writes, “And yet in other places he’s said that it takes faith to hear/respond to the Gospel. So in one place, it’s that hearing the Gospel leads to faith, and in another it’s that faith leads to hearing the Gospel.”
I’m pretty sure that I did not say that “faith leads to hearing the Gospel.” Romans 10 is clear, “Faith comes from hearing the word of Christ.” If I actually did say that, then this should clear it up.
You say, “he’s said that it takes faith to hear/respond to the Gospel.” Since I have cleared up the false notion that it takes faith to hear the gospel, we are left with “it takes faith to respond to the Gospel,” and this is true. Faith comes by hearing the gospel and faith responds to the gospel by believing in Christ.
Then, “the “veiled Gospel” (2 Corinthians 4:3) seems to be explained in 2 Corinthians 3:14”
Paul does use the example of the Jews to support his argument about the gospel being veiled. Then, in v18, He writes, “And we all, with unveiled face,…” By “all,” Paul expands to Jew and gentile, so that from this point on, he is addressing everyone to whom he writes the letter – the church in Corinth with all the saints. We see this in chap 4, “…the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers…” Here, “unbelievers” would be all unbelievers, whether Jew or gentile. We don’t see Paul directing his comments to just the Jews at he did in chap 3.
rhutchin
Paul expands to Jew and gentile, so that from this point on, he is addressing everyone to whom he writes the letter – the church in Corinth with all the saints. ….
br.d
Actually – in Calvinism “we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, ” would only apply to the “elect” among the Calvinist believers.
So the “ALL” in that text would certainly not represent “ALL” Calvinist believers without exception
Because – according to Calvinism – the elect are only a
-quote
“Few grains hidden under a HUGE PILE” of Calvinist believers who are specifically given a FALSE SENSE of salvation
The preponderance of the Calvinist believers represent the -quote “HUGE PILE” who are divinely deceived by Calvin’s god
Per John Calvin – the preponderance of Calvinist believers are given a:
-quote
“SENSE such as can be felt without the spirit of adoption”
So on Calvinism – the word “ALL” in that text cannot mean “ALL” without exception.
Additionally – it doesn’t necessarily have to include Jews or Gentiles either.
What it does necessarily have to include are those whom Calvin’s god has NOT designed/created specifically for eternal torment for his good pleasure.
rhutchin wrote: Of course, Pastor Luz cannot define “libertarian free will” as it applies to people without faith, and he doesn’t otherwise engage in any reasonable argument that explains his belief, if he even knows what he believes.
roland wrote: Great point! Non-calvinists don’t have a definition for people without faith (libertarian freewill), at least not a definition that is biblical.
I see rhutchin’s god is still unchangeably ordaining him to misspell my name, all for its maximal glory.
Hardly a great point. Hardly a point at all, since non-calvinists have a perfectly clear biblical and dictionary definition of free-will. Br D has even provided it for you. But we haven’t finished dealing with the dishonest Calvinist claim that people freely choose to sin (according to Calvinist mythology). I can understand why you both would be keen to move on from that, but you haven’t actually addressed how people “freely choose” to sin when:
(a) They cannot choose anything else
(b) They cannot even desire to choose anything else
I’ll wait.
Pastor Loz writes, “non-calvinists have a perfectly clear biblical and dictionary definition of free-will. Br D has even provided it for you.”
Br.d’s definition of LFW is no different than the compatibilist (Calvinist) definition of free will. If you are good with that, that’s great.
Then, “you haven’t actually addressed how people “freely choose” to sin when:
(a) They cannot choose anything else
(b) They cannot even desire to choose anything else”
Given that you have no problem equating LFW with compatibilist free will, I don’t see what your problem is. People choose according to their desires and are locked into those desires and do not choose contrary to their desires. That is certainly the case with the decision about salvation. People without faith reject salvation; people with faith accept salvation. That God knows what a person will choose before he makes his choice does not change this.
rhutchin
Br.d’s definition of LFW is no different than the compatibilist (Calvinist) definition of free will. If you are good with that, that’s great.
br.d
FALSE
1) The ability to choose among a range of options
This is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Determinism
It is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY even for Calvin’s god to “RENDER-CERTAIN both [A] and [NOT A] come to pass
Because one MUTUALLY EXCLUDES the other.
Just as it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the future to be both CLOSED and OPEN at the same time.
Therefore attribute (1) is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Determinism – and NOT COMPATIBLE with Determinism
And thus not available the compatibilist.
2) That choice NOT being made by someone else – or by factors outside of one’s control
DUH!
Any adult brain can understand how that is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Determinism – and thus NOT COMPATIBLE with Determinism.
Sorry rhutchin!
Those Freedoms don’t apply to the compatibilist (aka Calvinist). :-]
/////rhutchin wrote: “Br D’s definition than the compatibilist definition of free will. /////
Now we KNOW that you don’t understand compatbilism! Br D’s definition is below
Libertarian Freedom is defined as:
1) The ability to choose among a range of options
2) Those options NOT determined by someone else or by factors outside of your control
That therefore includes the ability to choose to sin, or to repent.
In calvinist mythology, a person cannot choose to sin or to repent, unless and until they have been zapped by calvi-god’s magic dust. And their options are determined by their sinful nature, a factor outside of their control. And their sinful nature has been unchangeably ordained by God – someone else, and is a factor also outside of their control.
Rhutchin wrote: “Calvinists say that people without faith are totally depraved governed by their selfish, covetous and prideful natures and because of this, they can only choose to sin, and this they do by compulsion of their nature and not coercion by God. Pastor Luz calls this a lie. So, what does he believe? Apparently nothing except that he doesn’t believe the Calvinists.”
I said your lie is that they “freely choose to sin”. At least try to quote me accurately. I guess you need to look up what “oxymoron” means. You are so deeply imbrolied in it that you can’t even see it. “they can ONLY CHOOSE to sin”. If they can “ONLY CHOOSE” to sin, then they are not choosing to sin, because they have NO OTHER OPTIONS. Look up the word CHOOSE. In order to choose, a person needs to have MORE THAN ONE OPTION. If they only have one option, it is not a choice.
I am very clear about what I believe, so that one is not going to work. But here we are still focused on the oxymorons, redefinitions, equivocations and every-moving goalposts of what YOU believe. And that’s where I am staying until you address them.
Pastor Loz writes, “If they can “ONLY CHOOSE” to sin, then they are not choosing to sin, because they have NO OTHER OPTIONS.”
To say that people can only choose to sin does not mean that a person does not have options. It just means that, given the option to sin or not sin, a person will choose to sin. As Paul explains, a person will judge another person by the sin that they do, but they will excuse themselves when they do the very same thing. People are hypocrites; they know what is sin and judge sin in others people while freely choosing to do the same thing themselves.
Except that in Calvinist mythology, man does not have the option not to sin. Thanks for proving my point.
rhutchin
To say that people can only choose to sin does not mean that a person does not have options
br.d
There are many things which Calvinists hold as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time
And Exhaustive Divine Determinism’s CLOSED FUTURE is one of them
A CLOSED future – LOGICALLY EQUATES to ONE SINGLE PRE-RENDERED-CERTAIN option for any creaturely movement.
Which means for every human deliberation – multiple options exist only as a PREDESTINED ILLUSION.
No Calvinist can live with the LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES of Exhaustive Divine Determinism
In this case – rhutchin can’t live without an OPEN future – because he needs its attribute of multiple options being OPEN to him from which to choose – in order to PERCEIVE himself as having a choice.
Secondly – he needs the PERCEPTION of seeing himself as the DETERMINER of a choice
Which in Exhaustive Divine Determinism is also nothing more than a PREDESTINED ILLUSION
That’s why every Calvinist while claiming he believes in a Exhaustive Divine Determinism’s CLOSED FUTURE will blindly assert it as TRUE
And at the same time he will treat it *AS-IF* it is FALSE without blinking.
And his brain is TOTALLY BLIND to the blatant contradiction.
This is called Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
He claims the Bible teaches a CLOSED FUTURE – is TRUE – while AUTO-MAGICALLY treating it *AS-IF* FALSE.
That is one of many manifestations of how Calvinism is a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system! :-]
Rhutchin wrote: people are selfish, covetous, and prideful and that is what they get from the world. God ordained this outcome when He withheld faith from people until they heard the gospel. Without faith and controlled by their selfish, covetous and prideful nature, people can do nothing but sin. God explains accountability in Romans 2, where we read, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?” People look out for themselves by doing things that they condemn others for doing. Thus, they are accountable for their sin.
You said “people can do nothing but sin”. So that is the only account they would need to give to the mythical calvinist god, if the myth of calvinism was true. “God, I could do nothing but sin. My hands were tied. I could not do otherwise”. Calvinism gives them the perfect excuse. Whereas we know from the BIBLE that they HAVE NO EXCUSE:
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
But it’s great to know that rhutchin’s god has now unchangeably ordained for him to spell my name correctly, all for its maximal glory 😀
Roland wrote: “You did not choose to be born with a sin nature but because of Adam’s sin you are a sinner. This means as humans we will always choose to sin”.
It is truly amazing that you can write those statements, and yet not see the contradiction within them. You are admitting that in calvinism you cannot do anything other than sin, because of the unchosen sinful nature that you were born with. And yet you continue to pretend that we CHOOSE to sin. If sin is our only option, then we do not choose to sin. Choice requires two or ore options. This is why calvinists have to redefine words like “choose”.
Pastor Loz writes, “You are admitting that in calvinism you cannot do anything other than sin, because of the unchosen sinful nature that you were born with. And yet you continue to pretend that we CHOOSE to sin.”
Adam sinned and now we have a corrupt nature. If that were not bad enough, we weren’t born with faith, so no incentive to righteousness.
So, the issue: Do we choose to sin? Paul explains in Romans 2 how this happens: “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?”
The biblical truth is that we choose to sin. By contrast, the inevitable conclusion of Calvinism is that we do not choose to sin, because we have no other option. In biblical theology, man has no excuse. In Calvinism, even though Calvinists try to deny it, man has the perfect place xcuse – inability.
Pastor Loz
Choice requires two or ore options. This is why calvinists have to redefine words like “choose”.
roland
The option not to sin is there, it doesn’t disappear in Calvinism as you seem to claim it does. The problem is not that there is no option to not sin, the problem is that when given the choice to sin or not to sin, unregenerate sinners will always choose to sin. Unregenerate sinners cannot do otherwise. It is a very simple biblical concept, why do you noncalvinists struggle with this? Noncalvinists refuse to admit that there is none righteous, no not one (Romans 3:10). The idea of libertarian freewill is an assumption made but it is not found in Scripture. Noncalvinists bring this non-biblical idea, libertarian freewill, in their reading and interpretation of Scripture. That is the great error of all noncalvinists. Libertarian freewill is not a doctrine that comes from an exegesis of Scripture, it comes from a logical argument that in order for God to just He must give all men the same opportunity to be saved. All men must be able to choose between believing or not believing. In order to do so man must have freewill or God is unjust. The cross under noncalvinist doctrine is only a means to an end, a work not finished that must have man’s faith added to it so that salvation may be accomplished.
JI Packer wrote this:
“The Cross saves. Where the Arminian will only say: “I could not have gained my salvation without Calvary,’ the Calvinist will say: ‘Christ gained my salvation for me at Calvary.’ The former (that is Arminian) makes the Cross the sine qua non of salvation, the latter (that is Calvinism) sees it as the actual procuring cause of salvation, and traces the source of every spiritual blessing, faith included, back to the great transaction between God and His Son carried through Calvary’s Hill. Clearly these two concepts of redemption are quite at variance.”
roland
The option not to sin is there, it doesn’t disappear in Calvinism as you seem to claim it does.
br.d
And the fact that that is an abject contradiction of your doctrine goes right over your head!
FIRSTLY:
The doctrine of Total Depravity stipulates sin as your option.
Which means sin is infallibly decreed.
And there is only ever ONE SINGLE option granted to you in Calvinism.
The option to obey that which is infallibly decreed.
Thus – where sin [X] is infallibly decreed – there is no option for NOT sin [X] .
SECONDLY:
There is no such thing as disobeying an infallible decree
The option to do so does not exist.
THIRDLY:
Exhaustive Divine Determinism demands a CLOSED future for every event
The option(s) [SIN] or [NOT SIN] – would equate to an OPEN future – which is EXCLUDED.
FORTHLY:
It is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to “RENDER-CERTAIN” what your choice will be
And at the same time grant you another option from that which is “RENDERED-CERTAIN”
Therefore in Calvinism you have no such option to NOT SIN
Roland wrote: “The option not to sin is there, it doesn’t disappear in Calvinism as you seem to claim it does. The problem is not that there is no option to not sin, the problem is that when given the choice to sin or not to sin, unregenerate sinners will always choose to sin. Unregenerate sinners cannot do otherwise. It is a very simple biblical concept, why do you noncalvinists struggle with this?”
The only thing we “struggle” with is the complete lack of any honesty in this statement. Only in the distorted world of Calvinism is an “option” someone is completely unable to choose actually classed as an “option”. Why do you Calvinists struggle with actually being honest? It seems totally depraved to me.
Roland wrote: “Non-calvinists refuse to admit that there is none righteous, no not one (Romans 3:10).”
Quote me one non-calvinist in this group who refuses to admit this. I’ll wait. For someone who continually complains about being mis-represented, you do an excellent job of mis-representing others.
Pastor Loz
Quote me one non-calvinist in this group who refuses to admit this. I’ll wait. For someone who continually complains about being mis-represented, you do an excellent job of mis-representing others.
roland
Leighton Flowers in his youtube video Romans 3:10-12 De-Calvinized. As far as misrepresentation goes it is the commentators on this website that continually misrepresents Calvinism. Non-calvinists on this website are constantly commenting what “true Calvinism” is when no Calvinist, at least a prominent Calvinist, teaches the things non-calvinists say we do. What non-calvinists do on this website is “cloak” their misrepresentation in a logical or philosophical argument.
If I were to do that with libertarian freewill proponents the first thing they say is, “that’s misrepresenting us.” When all I’m doing is coming to logical conclusion as non-calvinists do with Calvinism. Br.d is really good at this. If it is true that humans have libertarian freewill, that is a will that has nothing to move it such as a desire to eat or drink, a desire for good things, a desire to avoid harmful things, nothing CAUSES or at least INFLUENCES our decision in any way, then we would be inanimate objects like a rock that would never make any decision. Our wills are always affected by something outside of our control. Libertarian freewill is an illusion. Scripture never addresses the human will as free it is always either alive to God or dead to God, captive to sin or free from sin. We are outside of Christ in bondage to sin, the flesh, and the darkness of our minds. That’s why Jesus told Nicodemus unless a man is born again, He cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Here’s an example of you misrepresenting me:
Roland obviously believes that the elect are “born saved”.
roland
When did I ever write that the elect are born saved? You said it is obvious that I believe this. You completely misunderstood my comment because you don’t understand what Calvinists are saying. There are some hyper Calvinists who believe in eternal justification, I don’t as I believe it is not a biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches us that we are children of wrath by nature and must be made children of God by a sovereign act of God. I don’t obviously believe that the elect are born saved and no prominent Calvinist does. This is a misrepresentation by non-calvinist. Thanks for reading.
Roland
Non-calvinists on this website are constantly commenting what “true Calvinism” is when no Calvinist, at least a prominent Calvinist, teaches the things non-calvinists say we do.
br.d
That’s the exact same argument a car thief uses when he gets caught by the police.
You police keep saying I’m a “TRUE car thief”
Just because I rob cars
But that is something I have never ever said!
Therefore you misrepresent me!
Good argument Roland! ;-D
Roland wrote: “When did I ever write that the elect are born saved? You said it is obvious that I believe this. You completely misunderstood my comment because you don’t understand what Calvinists are saying. There are some hyper Calvinists who believe in eternal justification, I don’t as I believe it is not a biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches us that we are children of wrath by nature and must be made children of God by a sovereign act of God. I don’t obviously believe that the elect are born saved and no prominent Calvinist does.”
It’s the inevitable conclusion of what you stated. You objected to the non-calvinist view that the cross by itself does not save, but requires man to believe. If the cross by itself saves, without a man believing, then that man is saved even before he believes. You don’t understand the implications of your own philosophical theory.
Pastor Loz
If the cross by itself saves, without a man believing, then that man is saved even before he believes. You don’t understand the implications of your own philosophical theory.
roland
The Calvinist position is not that “man is saved even before he believes.” Here is the Calvinists position: the cross by itself does save, we are saved when we believe, and Christ gained everything the elect needed for salvation at the cross. Faith is a gift from God that Christ gained for the elect on the cross. Our redemption as John Murray wrote in his book is accomplished by Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit. Christ accomplished everything the elect needed to be saved at the cross. We don’t add anything to Christ’s work.
The Arminian position, the positions set forth by the Remonstrants, is this: faith is not a gift from God but an act of man’s will. Since faith is not a gift, it resides in man even after the fall, when Christ died on the cross He did not obtain this as a spiritual gift for men. Under this system, Christ is only giving men the opportunity to be saved because man can provide the remaining element for salvation: faith. Here, faith is added to Christ’s work so that men will be saved.
///// Roland: “The Calvinist position is not that “man is saved even before he believes.” Here is the Calvinists position: the cross by itself does save, we are saved when we believe, and Christ gained everything the elect needed for salvation at the cross. /////
You can’t have it both ways. Either the cross saves, or the cross + believing saves
///// Roland: “Faith is a gift from God that Christ gained for the elect on the cross. ///// Did Eve lose her God-given ability to believe in Him after she fell? /////
///// The Arminian position, the positions set forth by the Remonstrants, is this: faith is not a gift from God but an act of man’s will. /////
Don’t know about the Arminian position but all good things come from God, and faith in God is a good thing, so faith is a gift from God, by creative design.
///// Roland Here, faith is added to Christ’s work so that men will be saved. /////
Wrong yet again, but then why break a habit? Christ work on the cross was complete. Faith is merely the means of receiving the completed gift.
Pastor Loz
You can’t have it both ways. Either the cross saves, or the cross + believing saves
roland
I’m not trying to have it both ways. Everything the elect needed was accomplished on the cross, His atonement, by Jesus. This includes the gift of faith for the elect. The gift of faith is applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit. We reject the idea that faith is an act of man without God. The cross saves it is not the cross plus believing.
Pastor Loz
Did Eve lose her God-given ability to believe in Him after she fell?
roland
Yes. The confession of my church reads: “Our first parents (Adam and Eve), by this sin (disobeying God regarding the tree), fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all; all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; and Romans 3:10-19.
Pastor Loz
Don’t know about the Arminian position but all good things come from God, and faith in God is a good thing, so faith is a gift from God, by creative design.
roland
“by creative design” Do you believe God gives faith to all people? Is that what you mean by “creative design”?
Pastor Loz
Wrong yet again, but then why break a habit? Christ work on the cross was complete. Faith is merely the means of receiving the completed gift.
roland
I agree Christ work on the cross was complete. The statement you quoted from me was the Arminian position. Under the Arminian system there is no elect before the foundation of the world, there is no predestination to be conformed to the image Christ (Romans 8:29), Christ’s atonement was not particular but general in that Christ died so that all maybe saved but He did not die anyone in particular. As a Calvinist I disagree with the Arminian position.
Here’s the Arminian position: God’s saving purpose in the death of His Son is an ineffectual wish, depending on its fulfillment on man’s willingness to believe, so that for all God could do Christ might have died and none been saved at all because it depend’s on man’s willingness to believe. If man out of his own libertarian freewill never comes to faith in Christ, then Christ died for no one. The Arminian will insist on God’s power to save on the Cross but that power will be of none effect unless man believes.
Under Calvinism Christ did not die for a hypothetical salvation for hypothetical believers, a mere possibility of salvation for any who might possibly believe but a real salvation for His own chosen people. Christ’s precious blood really does save, its intended effects of His death do in fact follow. Its saving power does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it. The cross secured the full salvation of all for whom Christ died.
Pastor Loz: Did Eve lose her God-given ability to believe in Him after she fell?
///// roland: Yes. The confession of my church reads: “Our first parents (Adam and Eve), by this sin (disobeying God regarding the tree), fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all; all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; and Romans 3:10-19. /////
So when Eve stated in Genesis 4:1 – “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man”, she was not exercising faith?
Pastor Loz: Christ work on the cross was complete. Faith is merely the means of receiving the completed gift.
///// roland: I agree Christ work on the cross was complete. The statement you quoted from me was the Arminian position. Under the Arminian system there is no elect before the foundation of the world, there is no predestination to be conformed to the image Christ (Romans 8:29) /////
That depends on which Arminian position you are referring to. There is more than one. They didn’t teach you that in your church, did they. Under corporate election, the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. Chosen in Him. Ephesians 1:4. All those who would be in Christ by faith were chosen for salvation.
In both Arminian positions, believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. With every post you reveal more ignorance regarding the beliefs of those who do not accept your philosophical theory.
///// Roland: Here’s the Arminian position: God’s saving purpose in the death of His Son is an ineffectual wish, depending on its fulfillment on man’s willingness to believe, so that for all God could do Christ might have died and none been saved at all because it depend’s on man’s willingness to believe. If man out of his own libertarian freewill never comes to faith in Christ, then Christ died for no one. The Arminian will insist on God’s power to save on the Cross but that power will be of none effect unless man believes. /////
You do realize that not every non-calvinist is an Arminian, do you? Leighton Flowers and many others are not Arminians. They are Provisionalists. In any event, the biblical, non-calvinist position is that Christ’s death achieved exactly what it set out to do, which was to provide salvation for all men. Hence 1 Tim 4:10, that verse you were unable to deal with. Christ provided actual salvation for all, and actually applies that actual salvation to actual people at the point in time when they believe. His blood really does save and is available to all. Just as the bronze serpent was lifted high and available for all to look at.
But it’s OK. You first quote your church confession and I can see that you are simply recycling the man-made creeds and philosophies you have been indoctrinated with. Seen it thousands of times.
Pastor Loz
So when Eve stated in Genesis 4:1 – “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man”, she was not exercising faith?
roland
I don’t know if she was exercising faith. I could only say that she said the man was acquired with the help of the Lord. One could made the argument that she is exercising faith because she acknowledge the Lord helping her.
Pastor Loz
You do realize that not every non-calvinist is an Arminian, do you?
roland
I do realize this but all non-calvinists believe in libertarian freewill in some degree. That’s what Calvinists disagree with. That’s what I disagree with. I even read Flowers’ book God’s Provision for All. He’s really not saying much, he even says less than what classical Arminians are saying.
Pastor Loz
which was to provide salvation for all men.
roland
Christ death does more than just provide. Calvinists believe it effectuated, accomplished salvation for the elect. The Bible teaches us that election and predestination proceed chronologically the moment a sinner believes in Christ; Ephesians 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world… Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
We believe because we are chosen and predestined, under any non-calvinist doctrine, it is reversed, we are chosen and predestined because we believe.
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
God appoints particular people to eternal life. Our belief or faith is not the result of our own working but of Him who appointed. We believe because we are appointed, under non-calvinist systems we are appointed because we believe.
Pastor Loz
You first quote your church confession and I can see that you are simply recycling the man-made creeds and philosophies you have been indoctrinated with. Seen it thousands of times.
roland
Every church has a creed or confession. Our confession is just written out so visitors can know what our church believes. For most churches the creed or confession is in the pastor’s head, it’s a mystery to visitors. At our church we will freely hand copies of our confession to visitors, encourage them to read it, and get to know us as a church.
You saying I have been indoctrinated makes it sound like I don’t think for myself. You don’t me beyond this website, how can you say about another person you’ve never met? What do you mean I am “recycling the man-made creeds and philosophies”? Do you only read the Bible? Do you ever read Christian books? You make it sound like extra biblical material is a bad thing when soteriology101 is exactly that, something providing information about Christianity that is not the bible.
Pastor Loz So when Eve stated in Genesis 4:1 – “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man”, she was not exercising faith?
///// Roland I don’t know if she was exercising faith. I could only say that she said the man was acquired with the help of the Lord. One could made the argument that she is exercising faith because she acknowledge the Lord helping her. /////
Seems pretty clear she was exercising faith. Seems very clear Abel was exercising faith. Where does the Bible say that Eve, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham were regenerated?
Pastor Loz which was to provide salvation for all men.
///// Roland Christ death does more than just provide. Calvinists believe it effectuated, accomplished salvation for the elect. The Bible teaches us that election and predestination proceed chronologically the moment a sinner believes in Christ; Ephesians 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. /////
I see you still can’t deal with 1 Tim 4:10. That makes it very clear Christ provided salvation for all men and applies it to those who believe. You have no other plausible explanation. No Calvinist does. The interpretation you offered before won’t do it. It doesn’t address “especially”. The lame interpretation of a “temporal Savior” doesn’t do it. That won’t address “especially” either. You just left that one well alone after I came back on your initial response.
Yes, Eph 1:4 says He chose us IN HIM. That little phrase you Calvinists like to ignore. Corporate election. Doesn’t like you have even heard of it because you thought there was only one Arminian position on it. Chosen IN HIM. You weren’t in him before the foundation of the world. You didn’t even exist to be in Him. It is the corporate category of those in Christ who were chosen. You step into that category at the point in time when you believe. Not before. That’s why Paul said in Romans 16:7 that Andronicus and Junia had been in Christ longer than him.
Pastor Loz Where does the Bible say that Eve, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham were regenerated?
roland
The Bible doesn’t say they were regenerated so you disagree with Jesus’s words to Nicodemus in John 3. According to you a man can enter the kingdom of God without being born again. You also disagree with Paul in Ephesians 2 that God made us alive while we’re dead in our trespasses and sin.
roland
I don’t know if she was exercising faith
br.d
She believes the Lord concerning her child.
Belief equals faith.
The Calvinist system stipulates there isn’t supposed to be any faith for Eve at that point.
Therefore the Calvinist brain – in accordance to his system – doesn’t see any there.
br.d
She believes the Lord concerning her child.
Belief equals faith.
The Calvinist system stipulates there isn’t supposed to be any faith for Eve at that point.
Therefore the Calvinist brain – in accordance to his system – doesn’t see any there.
roland
I don’t see any faith there the text doesn’t say Eve “believed” or Eve had “faith.”if the text clearly stated this I would believe it. My Calvinism has nothing to do with it. I will reiterate my position: I can see how someone can come to the conclusion that Eve had faith or belief in God. It’s not a point I would contend with anyone about. Just because Eve said this doesn’t mean she had faith in God.
Roland
I don’t see any faith there….
br.d
Oh I see!
So when you declare “The Lord blessed me with a good wife” you don’t see any belief in that statement either!
You are operating in GREASED PIG mode at this point! :-]
br.d
Oh I see!
So when you declare “The Lord blessed me with a good wife” you don’t see any belief in that statement either!
You are operating in GREASED PIG mode at this point! :-]
roland
How can I see faith anywhere? According to my own system, I lack any epistemic reasons to believe or have assurance of anything.
roland
How can I see faith anywhere? According to my own system, I lack any epistemic reasons to believe or have assurance of anything.
br.d
In such case you do what John Calvin instructs Calvinists to do just for this very reason
You go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part.
That way you treat your brain *AS-IF* it is permitted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE.
But of course – Calvin’s god who is the SOLE DETERMINER – has the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE
And he thus knows that your perception is FALSE.
And the reason he knows your perception if FALSE is because he decreed your perception to be infallibly FALSE.
Thus – on your system of a CLOSED future – where Calvin’s god determined you perception to be infallibly FALSE – your brain is “bound” to that falsehood – and not permitted any ability to know it.
Roland wrote: “The cross under noncalvinist doctrine is only a means to an end, a work not finished that must have man’s faith added to it so that salvation may be accomplished.”
Roland obviously believes that the elect are “born saved”. He doesn’t even understand his own philosophical theory, where the cross does not save any of the elect until the point in time when they actually believe. This is the confusion that calvinism produces.
Let’s see if Roland can explain 2 Timothy 4:10.
Pastor Loz
Let’s see if Roland can explain 2 Timothy 4:10.
roland
What is there to explain?
2 Timothy 4:10
10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia.
roland
What is there to explain?
2 Timothy 4:10
10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
The Calvinist explanation is not favorable to anyone – so I’ll avoid the question :-]
apologies, 1 Tim 4:10
Pastor Loz
apologies, 1 Tim 4:10
roland
My first thought on this verse is that it cannot be universalism, that everyone will be saved. There are many more Scriptures that teach people will be condemned for eternity, the lake of fire in Revelation will not be empty.
Second, there are several different interpretations as I read in my commentaries I have on 1 Timothy. I would go with the interpretation that “Savior of all people” means that only God is the Savior for all people in the sense that there is no salvation outside of the Triune God. There is a distinction as Paul also wrote, “especially of those who believe.” I believe the second half of this phrase is a qualifier for eternal life.
I have an aunt who is a Christian and universalist. This is one of the verses she uses when we discuss the Bible along with many others. She believes God’s love is so great for the world that He will not allow any body to suffer and be in pain for eternity. It is against His nature she says because God is love.
//// Roland: My first thought on this verse is that it cannot be universalism, that everyone will be saved. There are many more Scriptures that teach people will be condemned for eternity, the lake of fire in Revelation will not be empty. /////
I agree that it does not teach universal salvation. It teaches universal provision of salvation, not universal application.
///// Roland there are several different interpretations as I read in my commentaries I have on 1 Timothy. I would go with the interpretation that “Savior of all people” means that only God is the Savior for all people in the sense that there is no salvation outside of the Triune God.
There is a distinction as Paul also wrote, “especially of those who believe.” I believe the second half of this phrase is a qualifier for eternal life. /////
The Greek word “malista”, translated “especially”, is a comparative adverb. It is expressing a difference in DEGREE, not in TYPE. This rules out the other common calvinist “common grace” based explanation, that Jesus is a “temporal” Savior in that He provides water, air etc. for all.
It therefore shows that there is a sense in which Christ is the Savior of all. The only reasonable explanation is that He is Savior of all because He PROVIDES salvation for all, and ESPECIALLY of those who believe, in that this salvation is APPLIED to those who believe. The interpretation you provided does not address this dimension of “especially”, since in that interpretation, Christ is not the Savior of unbelievers in any sense. Salvation is never on the table for them.
Roland
The former (that is Arminian) makes the Cross the sine qua non of salvation (i.e. indispensable for salvation)
While the latter (that is Calvinism) sees it as the actual procuring cause of salvation.
br.d
Quoting JI Packer is not the wisest choice in the world.
Packer is historically unable to differentiate a contradiction from a paradox
And they are NOT the same thing.
In this regard – what he calls the Arminian position – it is the very position that is clearly stated in scripture.
The cross is in fact indispensable for salvation.
Now on Packer’s other claim – that the cross is the CAUSE of salvation – that statement is EQUIVOCAL.
Because in Calvinism the cross simply functions as a SECONDARY MEANS which is itself CAUSED.
So the TRUE CAUSE of salvation in Calvinism – is the same TRUE CAUSE for everything that comes to pass in Calvinism.
The infallible decree is the TRUE CAUSE
In Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) that state of nature (including man’s nature) at any instance in time – is 100% DETERMINED at the foundation of the world – by infallible decree.
And salvation is a state.
Therefore the TRUE CAUSE of salvation in Calvinism is the infallible decree – not the cross.
br.d
In this regard – what he calls the Arminian position – it is the very position that is clearly stated in scripture.
The cross is in fact indispensable for salvation.
roland
The arminian position is not biblical. True, the cross is in fact indispensable for salvation. But, as Packer noted, under the arminian doctrine of salvation faith is not a gift of God, but only an act of man. The Synod of Dort rejected the Arminian doctrine “that in the true conversion of man no new qualities, powers or gifts can be infused by God into the will, and that therefore faith through which we are first converted, and because of which we are called believers, is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only an act of man, and that it cannot be said to be a gift, except in respect of the power to attain to this.” Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Arminian doctrine clearly contradicts Scripture because they teach that faith is not a gift from God but only an act from man. In other words, faith is work wrought by man. Under Arminian doctrine faith, which comes from man, completes the work of Christ on the cross. In Calvinism, as noted by Packer, our faith, which is a gift from God, is due to our election. God in the cross gives us everything we need to be saved, the Holy Spirit, repentance, new life, faith, etc.
br.d
And salvation is a state.
Therefore the TRUE CAUSE of salvation in Calvinism is the infallible decree – not the cross.
roland
Another misrepresentation of Calvinism. It is true that the plan of salvation is decreed by God, all things that pertain to our salvation have been decreed by God but the infallible decree does not save us. The infallible decree does not gives us the Holy Spirit, regeneration, repentance, faith, adoption, sanctification and all other gifts that pertain to our salvation. What you have done is conflated the infallible decree with the work of Christ.
And again you will not be able to provide a prominent Calvinist teaching or preaching that we are saved by God’s infallible decree. We believe what the Bible says not what logic or philosophical arguments say: we are saved by Jesus Christ. Thanks for reading.
Roland
The arminian position is not biblical. True, the cross is in fact indispensable for salvation. But, as Packer noted, under the arminian doctrine of salvation faith is not a gift of God, but only an act of man.
br.d
Well congratulations Roland!
You’ve accomplished two wonderful achievements with this simple statement
1) You’ve revealed one more time that you can blindly misrepresent others while complaining others misrepresent you.
How does one spell “Hypocrite”? :-]
2)
And you’ve also revealed in this statement – the Arminian position is that “choice” is a gift of divine grace – is made available to the Arminian. But that gift of “choice” is not granted to the Calvinist.
But in order to MASQUERADE the Calvinist problem you have to rely on DOUBLE-SPEAK statements like:
Calvinists really do have a choice
Its just that “ultimately” they don’t have a choice.
Congratulations!
You’ve exemplified Calvinist hypocrisy and Calvinist DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – in one quick stroke! :-]
brdmod
“Hypocrite”?
roland
I’m a hypocrite?
brdmod
And you’ve also revealed in this statement – the Arminian position is that “choice” is a gift of divine grace – which the Arminian is made available to the Arminian. But that gift of “choice” is not granted to the Calvinist.
roland
Which verse in the Bible teaches us that “choice” is a gift? The choice Calvinists believe is the gift of grace and faith that God gives His elect as stated in Ephesians 2 so that we can choose Christ. It is a biblical gift as in one derived from the Bible not logic, reason, or philosophy. Libertarian freewill and “choice” are assumptions brought to Scripture, not derived from Scripture.
brdmod
But in order to MASQUERADE the Calvinist problem you have to rely on DOUBLE-SPEAK statements like:
Calvinists really do have a choice
Its just that “ultimately” they don’t have a choice.
roland
The Calvinist position is that man in his natural unregenerate state cannot choose to repent and believe in Christ. He must be born again as Ephesians 2 and John 3 teach us. Sinners always make choices but without God’s grace their choices are sinful. It’s ultimately a choice we have when God makes us alive by the Holy Spirit, renews our hearts, our affections, that we choose Christ.
roland
Which verse in the Bible teaches us that “choice” is a gift?
br.d
Another non-sequitur
Lets watch as you contradict this in your very next statement!
roland
The choice Calvinists believe is the gift of grace
br.d
Which resolves to choice being a gift and NOT a gift at the same time
That fits the patter of how many things in Calvinist are TRUE and FALSE at the same time :-]
Roland
…..so that we can choose Christ.
br,d
While at the same time – “ultimately” you don’t REALLY have a choice!
DOUBLE-MINDED is as DOUBLE-MINDED does! :-]
Roland
Libertarian freewill and “choice” are assumptions brought to Scripture, not derived from Scripture.
br.d
That very Freedom which you assume you have – every time you
1) Perceive multiple options which exist as REAL – available to you from which to choose
2) Perceive yourself as the “chooser” of a choice
3) Perceive your brain as having the epistemic freedom to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter
Thus you assume the very freedom you claim scripture doesn’t teach.
Good one Roland! :-]
But in order to MASQUERADE the Calvinist problem you have to rely on DOUBLE-SPEAK statements like:
Calvinists really do have a choice
Its just that “ultimately” they don’t have a choice.
roland
The Calvinist position is that man in his natural unregenerate state cannot choose to repent and believe in Christ.
br.d
You are very consistently with your OBFUSCATIONS!
You don’t REALLY have any choice at all.
Because your act of “choice” is nothing more than Calvin’s god making an impulse come to pass irresistibly within your brain.
Roland
the Holy Spirit, renews our hearts, our affections, that we choose Christ.
br.d
Yea right!!!
You choose Christ the same exact way a robot chooses to follow its program! :-]
br.d
Another non-sequitur
Lets watch as you contradict this in your very next statement!
roland
That’s very typical of you. I ask you to show me a verse that teaches us “choice” is a gift from God and you answer with “non-sequitur.” I show you a verse that teaches us that faith is a gift and you reply, “non-sequitur.”
br.d
Which resolves to choice being a gift and NOT a gift at the same time
That fits the patter of how many things in Calvinist are TRUE and FALSE at the same time :-]
roland
Seriously, I have no idea how you come to these conclusions and statements. I’ve told you before I have a hard time understanding your comments because you like to do this “if X” then “not X” and in conclusion Calvinism leads to double-think!!! Double-mindedness!!! I honestly don’t know how you logically get to your conclusion.
You can have the last word as I really don’t get where you’re coming from and going to, sorry, maybe I’m just too stupid!
roland
I ask you to show me a verse that teaches us “choice” is a gift from God and you answer with “non-sequitur.”
br.d
Do you need a verse from scripture to tell you that the function of your heart beating is a gift?
You sure use scripture in a weird way Roland! :-]
The act of a “choice” is a human function
And all human functions are a gift.
Therefore asking to prove something that is LOGICALLY obvious is a “non-sequitur.”
roland
Seriously, I have no idea how you come to these conclusions and statements.
br.d
Its LOGICAL my dear Watson! :-]
Roland
I honestly don’t know how you logically get to your conclusion.
br.d
Why not take the time to investigate what you don’t currently understand about logical thinking?
R Hutchin writes: “Pastor Loz writes, “They are compelled to sin, by the unchosen, inherited sinful nature that calvi-god unchangeably ordained they would inherit (“compatibilistic soft determinism”), or by God unchangeably ordaining that they would sin every time (“hard” determinism”). So of course you have to redefine the word “free”. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this lie, it won’t magically become true.”
That’s the way Paul explains it in Romans 2, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?” A person judges a person who does X and then turns around and does X. In judging X as wrong and then doing X even though he judges X to be wrong, the person exercises his freedom to choose. It provides the basis for God to judge the person.
That’s not what Romans 2 is saying at all. Nowhere in Romans 2 does it state that God unchangeably ordained that those people would sin. Romans 2 is addressing hypocrisy and judgment. Br D is right, you simply select random Scriptures to support your philosophical theory. In calvinism, the person who judges X is not exercising any freedom. He is doing what he has been programmed to do by calvi-god.
Roland wrote: “I ask you to show me a verse that teaches us “choice” is a gift from God and you answer with “non-sequitur.”
That’s because you are a proof-texter. All calvinists are. The fact that God has given men genuine ability to choose is all throughout Scripture. Every time God gives men a choice. Every time He warns them against making a wrong choice. Every time He rebukes them and punishes them for making a wrong choice. Every time He laments the wrong choices they make and makes it clear He wanted them to choose differently.
But in your world, God is not ALLOWED to give men those genuine choices. He is not allowed to exercise HIS sovereignty in that way, because that would make man sovereign! LOL! That is the true irony of calvinism, it elevates itself above God and tries to stipulate how He can and cannot exercise His sovereignty.
Your philosophical theory makes all of the above nothing more than a pantomime. Here is your version of God’s interaction with Cain:
Genesis 4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? (thinks to Himself – “because I secretly, unchangeably ordained that you would be angry”) 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” (thinks to Himself, “but you won’t be able to rule over it, because I have secretly, unchangeably ordained that you won’t be able to. I have meticulously predetermined that you will murder your brother so I can punish you for it”).
This is the point where you say, “show me where I have said that”.
That, sadly, is the completely disingenuous, fraudulent, fake version of God that you believe in.
Roland wrote: “When it comes to God’s knowledge God knows because He decreed it. Since you believe that Calvinists err when we appeal to mystery, you must know everything and you would never appeal to mystery? Christianity is a mysterious religion in the sense that God has not revealed all things to us. Unless you know all things and have no need for mystery?”
There is a difference between a genuine mystery, such as how God could have no beginning, and an irreconcilable contradiction that calvinists try to explain away as a “mystery”. You can’t simply label everything as a “mystery” in order to avoid dealing with your contradictions. Thus, the calvinist claim that we “freely choose to sin”, whilst asserting at the very same time that we cannot do anything other than to sin, is a contradiction. It is not a mystery. But because you can’t deal with the contradiction, rather than admit to it, it is much more convenient (and pseudo-pious) to say, “ah well, that is a mystery”.
Pastor Loz writes, “Thus, the calvinist claim that we “freely choose to sin”, whilst asserting at the very same time that we cannot do anything other than to sin, is a contradiction.”
If a man walks up to a bank to rob it but then sees a policeman at the front door, he turns and walks away. That is a person choosing not to sin, in this case by robbing the bank.
In Romans Paul wrote, “Whatever is not of faith is sin.” People cannot receive faith until they hear the gospel. Without faith, it is impossible for a person to do other than sin. People are still born with a conscience and they know that they do things to other people that they do not want people to do to them. Some even “choose” not to mistreat others and do so freely.
pastor loz
You can’t simply label everything as a “mystery” in order to avoid dealing with your contradictions.
roland
Calvinists do not label everything a mystery. That’s a broad generalization that is not true. There are not contradictions in Calvinism. They sound contradictory to you because of your presuppositions. I’ve had many discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe that salvation by grace is a contradiction. They believe it is a contradiction to give something to somebody that they did not earn. Have you ever spoken to a modalist? They also believe the Trinity is a contradiction because God cannot be one in three persons. The Bible reveals truths to us that sound contradictory but are not.
I repeat, for Calvinists to claim that in their system people “freely choose to sin” is a flat out, irreconcilable contradiction, not a mystery. I’ll wait for you to show me how it isn’t.
Absolutely TRUE!
A mystery is simply something that is not known.
A contradiction occurs when something is held as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time and at in the same sense
A contradiction is therefore not a mystery.
But since Calvinists live in a world of contradictions which they cannot acknowledge for sake of ego – they CAMOUFLAGE their contradictions behind a manufactured masks – by labeling them mysteries.
Its part of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-MINDED condition :-]
Pastor LozI
repeat, for Calvinists to claim that in their system people “freely choose to sin” is a flat out, irreconcilable contradiction, not a mystery. I’ll wait for you to show me how it isn’t.
roland
I can’t show you that my statement is an irreconcilable contradiction. You already believe it to be and in order to show you that it is not I would have to overcome your presupposition with an argument. I can’t do that, sorry, I don’t have the power to bend a person’s will, I can only declare to you what I am saying.
Sinners being free to choose sin means that they can only choose to sin. Sounds like a paradox or oxymoron but sinners are free because there is no need to coerce, compel, or force them to sin. They freely choose to sin because their hearts are wicked, they love sin, they hate God, etc. This is why Paul pleaded with sinners to come to Christ because sinners without the aid of God will not come. They are not free to come to Christ, they need the Holy Spirit. It is not the same with sin, a sinner does not need anyone to plead with them to sin, they freely, that is without compulsion or coercion, commit sin.
Humans are in a state of sin where there is both liberty and bondage. Thomas Boston wrote, “Sin is the natural man’s element; he is as unwilling to part with it as fish are to come out of the water on to dry land. He is a captive, a prisoner, and a slave, but he loves his conqueror, his jailor, and master.” Sinners freely love their bondage as there is no need for coercion when it comes to a sinner and his sin.
You don’t understand the Calvinist position of “freely choose to sin.” I don’t understand as a Calvinist how a Christian can come to the conclusion that sinners can choose anything but sin? Where in the Bible does it teach that man has the ability to do good, obey God without grace, has an innocent nature, loves righteousness outside of Christ, etc.? Nowhere. And if we do have any righteousness that is our own, it is tainted by sin Isaiah 64:6
I agree with Augustine who wrote this: “The free will taken captive does not avail, except for sin; but for righteousness, unless divinely set free and aided, it does not avail.”
Apart from Christ nobody can bear fruit that glorifies God.
John 15:5
“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
roland
I can’t show you that my statement is an irreconcilable contradiction. You already believe it to be and in order to show you that it is not I would have to overcome your presupposition with an argument
br.d
INTERPRETATION
What you are revealing with this statement – is in fact the reformed process of making a Calvinist
First you must absolutely STOP thinking RATIONALLY.
Just believe every word – and keep telling yourself – its not DOUBLE-THINK
Eventually everything will be just fine! :-]
Furthermore Roland, you wrote, “When it comes to God’s knowledge God knows because He decreed it.”
The problem with limiting God’s knowledge to what He decreed, is that you are then unable to explain how God knows about things that DID NOT happen, which by definition He could not have decreed to happen.
Pastor Loz writes, “The problem with limiting God’s knowledge to what He decreed, is that you are then unable to explain how God knows about things that DID NOT happen, which by definition He could not have decreed to happen.”
God knows those things that He decrees and God knows those things that He could have decreed but did not.
Except that you have now moved the goalposts. Please be sure to let Calvin know his statement was incorrect, whereby God only foresees things because He has decreed them. I can see what others said about your arguments is correct. They are ever changing, like holograms.
RHutchin wrote: “Pastor Loz writes, “Thus, the calvinist claim that we “freely choose to sin”, whilst asserting at the very same time that we cannot do anything other than to sin, is a contradiction.”
If a man walks up to a bank to rob it but then sees a policeman at the front door, he turns and walks away. That is a person choosing not to sin, in this case by robbing the bank.”
Another red herring. Since you believe that everything unregenerate man does is sin, the choice in question here is not between different TYPES of sin, but WHETHER TO SIN OR TO REPENT.
Pastor Loz writes, “Since you believe that everything unregenerate man does is sin, the choice in question here is not between different TYPES of sin, but WHETHER TO SIN OR TO REPENT.”
We should both agree that no one can repent until their have faith and that cannot happen until they hear the gospel – and obviously, there is no incentive to repent if a person never hears the gospel.
Without faith, a person is free to sin but unable to repent, so the choice to repent is not even an issue.
So, is the person “free” to choose if he has never heard the gospel, has no faith and is oblivious to any need to repent? In other words, is a totally depraved person free to choose if all his choices are sinful choices. The Calvinist says, Yes. A depraved person is free to choose according to his nature and desires just as the regenerate person is free to choose according to his nature and desires. Even though the only choices the depraved person faces are sinful choices, he is still free to choose among the options in front of him. That’s what compatibilist freedom is all about.
LFW is constrained in the same way. Even with LFW (whatever that is), no one can repent until their have faith and that cannot happen until they hear the gospel – and obviously, there is no incentive to repent if a person never hears the gospel.
I don’t see where LFW could change these circumstances.
rhutchin
I don’t see where LFW could change these circumstances.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
I don’t see any difference between a world in which people have a choice and a world in which people don’t
Well that would actually makes sense – since a Calvinist’s brain is not permitted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE
With what faculty would that brain see any difference! :-]
rhutchin; “I don’t see where LFW could change these circumstances.”
br.d: “INTERPRETATION I don’t see any difference between a world in which people have a choice and a world in which people don’t”
Yes. That’s basically what I said.
rhutchin;
I don’t see where LFW could change these circumstances.”
br.d:
INTERPRETATION
I don’t see any difference between a world in which people have a choice and a world in which people don’t”
rhutchin
Yes. That’s basically what I said.
br.d
Right!
And as I said – that makes perfect sense because on Exhaustive Divine Determinism the Calvinist brain is NOT granted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter. All such things are solely and exclusively determined – at the foundation of the world – by an external mind.
In other words – the Calvinist lives in a world in which he never granted any choice.
So it makes perfect sense that you wouldn’t know the difference.
Roland wrote: “The apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians that God works all things after the counsel of HIs own will, I believe it, I don’t subject it to a rational or philosophical test. Jesus said in John 6:44 that no man can come to me unless the Father draws him and Jesus will raise that man up at the last day, I believe it. I don’t subject Jesus’s statement to a rational or logical or philosophical test to prove its veracity. It’s true because Jesus said it.
Guess what, non-calvinists believe those verses too! We believe them because they are in the Bible. And guess what, we believe all the other verses too. When we read and believe John 6:44, we also read and believe John 12:32, which says that God draws ALL men. But that doesn’t fit your philosophical theory, so then you have to add EXTRA ELEMENTS to those verses, like “ah, well Jesus meant all KINDS of men, you see what He REALLY meant was both Jews and Gentiles, and we know this because R C Sproul explained it to us.”
And then guess what, you appeal to your OWN logic (when it suits you). You say, “If Jesus drew all men, then all men would come to Christ”. Because you pretend that the greek word “helko” can ONLY mean to DRAG, which the semantic domain shows it clearly does not.
And guess what, these verses stand up to logic too! Because God is LOGICAL, He is the SOURCE of all true logic. It is only the CALVINISTIC INTERPRETATIONS that cannot stand up to logic, that is why you have to run and hide from logical, rational scrutiny of your mythology.
R Hutchin wrote: “Without faith, a person is free to sin but unable to repent, so the choice to repent is not even an issue.” Still persisting with that calvi-myth that a person is “free to sin”. Since sin is all they can do, in your mythology, they are not “free to sin”. They are compelled to sin, by the unchosen, inherited sinful nature that calvi-god unchangeably ordained they would inherit (“compatibilistic soft determinism”), or by God unchangeably ordaining that they would sin every time (“hard” determinism”). So of course you have to redefine the word “free”. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this lie, it won’t magically become true.
Pastor Loz writes, “They are compelled to sin, by the unchosen, inherited sinful nature that calvi-god unchangeably ordained they would inherit (“compatibilistic soft determinism”), or by God unchangeably ordaining that they would sin every time (“hard” determinism”). So of course you have to redefine the word “free”. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this lie, it won’t magically become true.”
That’s the way Paul explains it in Romans 2, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?”
A person judges a person who does X and then turns around and does X. In judging X as wrong and then doing X even though he judges X to be wrong, the person exercises his freedom to choose. It provides the basis for God to judge the person.
rhutchin
That’s the way Paul explains it in Romans 2,
br.d
*AS-IF* that was what Pastor Loz was even talking about.
Non-Calvinist:
Calvin’s god MAKES all sinful impulses within people’s brains infallible and thus irresistible.
Thus MAKING people sin.
Calvinist response
That’s what the Bible says in [insert any any random bible verse here] :-]
R Hutchin writes: “everything must glorify God or be purposeless”.
Further proof that calvinists do love their false dichotomies 🙂
rhutchin
everything must glorify God or be purposeless”.
br.d
Thus for the Calvinist – the fact that his brain is not permitted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter – is for a purpose.
But how does he know – if that is TRUE or FALSE – since his brain is not permitted the epistemic function of Determining TRUE from FALSE?
Well this where Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern comes to his rescue!
He holds his doctrine (Exhaustive Divine Determinism) to be TRUE – while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
Thus he goes about his office *AS-IF* his brain is permitted the epistemic function of Determining TRUE from FALSE
Thus reality for the Calvinist brain – is *AS-IF* reality
Calvinists are so blessed!! :-]
Pastor Loz writes, “R Hutchin writes: “everything must glorify God or be purposeless”.
Further proof that calvinists do love their false dichotomies”
LOL!!! Says Pastor Loz while he scratches his head trying to think up a third option. So, did you come up with a third option?
R Hutchin writes: “Pastor Loz writes, “R Hutchin writes: “everything must glorify God or be purposeless”. Further proof that calvinists do love their false dichotomies”. LOL!!! Says Pastor Loz while he scratches his head trying to think up a third option. So, did you come up with a third option?
The only head-scratching taking place my side is how you manage to confuse Yahweh and satan. Firstly, feel free to provide Scriptures that “prove” your false dichotomy. It’s basically just a line you borrowed from James White in his discussion of child rape. It’s his twisted calvinistic logic in operation, so let’s stick with that particular abomination.
God is not glorified by child rape. God hates child rape. God did not meticulously, unchangeably ordain, decree, predetermine, prearrange, plan, or render certain any child rape. God permits evil and is able to bring good out of such a situation, and get glory from that good. The rapist has a purpose in that rape. The demonic has a purpose in that rape. To them it is not purposeless. It is sad that your version of God is effectively a rapist.
Pastor Loz
Firstly, feel free to provide Scriptures that “prove” your false dichotomy.
roland
Here’s Scripture taken from Isaiah. While it doesn’t prove rhutchin’s “false dichotomy” it does show that God is involved in more ways than non-calvinists say He is. Take note of God sending and giving Assyria but also how God uses what is in Assyria’s heart to accomplish God’s will. This is an example taken from Scripture of divine compatibility: God is exercising His sovereignty over Assyria, using Assyria to accomplish His will yet, as verse 7 says, Assyria does not intend to or think to do these things but it is in his heart to destroy. Leighton Flowers has a video about these verses and in the video Leighton does not believe God sends Assyria to do these things. Leighton says God “permits” Assyria. Nowhere in the text does it say this but because Leighton has many presuppositions about God and man, he has to interpret the text to fit them. Leighton’s supreme presupposition is that man has libertarian freewill so God cannot interfere or intervene in man’s actions. This is what makes Leighton’s theology man-centered.
On this website I have been accused of twisting Scripture but Leighton’s video is a perfect example of CHANGING Scripture. Leighton cannot plainly read the text he must interpret it so that it fits his system and Leighton’s followers take it as canon. The very thing Calvinists are often accused of, Leighton plainly does it, and none of Leighton’s followers say anything.
Isaiah 10:5-12
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.
8 For he says,
‘Are not my princes altogether kings?
9 Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
10 As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols,
Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
11 As I have done to Samaria and her idols,
Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’ ”
12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.”
Notice in verse 12 that God will punish Assyria for the fruit of his arrogant heart. Is God punishing Assyria for the very thing God sent Assyria to do? Sounds unjust to me that God would send Assyria to destroy a nation then punish Assyria for it.That’s like a cop sending a criminal to rob a store than arresting the criminal for doing the thing the cop sent him to do. I’ve heard Leighton use this analogy a few times about police and criminals.
Do you have any thoughts about these Bible verses?
Roland
Leighton’s video is a perfect example of CHANGING Scripture. Leighton cannot plainly read the text he must interpret it so that it fits his system
br.d
Two points Roland
1) Making blind claims without evidence simply tells SOT101 readers you don’t have any evidence to back up your claims. No one will take you seriously in such case
2) Its would be understandable for you assume others read the text in order to fit into a system if that in fact is process your mind has been conditioned to follow.
br.d
Two points Roland
1) Making blind claims without evidence simply tells SOT101 readers you don’t have any evidence to back up your claims. No one will take you seriously in such case
2) Its would be understandable for you assume others read the text in order to fit into a system if that in fact is process your mind has been conditioned to follow.
roland
The video can easily be found on youtube just search Leighton Flowers Isaiah 10, it pops up. I can back up my claim but it will be up to the person seeking to see my evidence to go to youtube and watch. I don’t know how to put links in the comments.
What are you trying to say in point 2? Could you clarify it please? It sounds like you are saying that I am conditioned to read a text a certain way. If so, which way would that be? And, am I the only person who is conditioned to read the text as you wrote? Thanks
On point 1 – that doesn’t work
You made the claim – requires you provide evidence
You need to quote a verse and Dr. Flowers comments on that verse – and then show LOGICALLY how Dr. Flowers reading of the text cannot possibly be what the author of the text meant.
Otherwise – what you are doing is simply projecting your own system upon Dr. Flowers.
Which means you are doing to Dr. Flowers – what you are claiming Dr. Flowers is doing with the text.
On point 1 – I’ll provide an example from the verses you recently posted and asked for comment.
You need to read the passage more carefully. It was ALREADY in the King of Assyria’s heart to DESTROY and plunder NATIONS. In fact he was already doing so. Not just the one God sent him against. Multiple nations Every nation he could lay his hands on. So please don’t try to tell us that God compelled the king of Assyria to do anything he did not already desire and intend to do, and would not have done at some point regardless. His evil ambitions went far BEYOND the purpose of disciplining His people that God had in mind. What did God do? He SENT him. He told him to go. He did not FORCE him to go. He did not render it impossible for the King of Assyria to do otherwise, as Calvinists would insert in the text. God is rightly punishing him for all his evil, unrepentant attitudes and deeds. He is not punishing him for anything he would not have done anyway. Nothing unjust about it. Nothing Calvinistic about it either.
Roland asks for comments on verses.
CRITICAL NOTE:
Comments below reflect what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in the Calvinist belief system – and therefore what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the Calvinist’s reading of the text. So comments below do not reflect what Calvinists say – because Calvinist are not willing to tell the WHOLE TRUTH concerning what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS with their system.
Roland
Isaiah 10:5-12
5 “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation.
br.d
So lets read this verse based on Calvinism’s UNDERLYING PRESUPPOSITION of Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
Calvin’s god infallibly decreed certain impulses to move within the Assyrian brains so that he could blame those impulses on the Assyrians – and move his hand with 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.
br.d
Here Calvin’s god first decrees certain irresistible and impulses to come to pass within the brains of Israel so that he can blame them for the impulses he decreed come to pass – and then he decrees irresistible impulses come to pass within the brains of the Assyrians in order to use them as instruments of punishment against Israel.
Thus – Calvin’s god is like a chess player who manipulates the players on both sides of the board.
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.
8 For he says, ‘Are not my princes altogether kings? Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
br.d
Which Calvin’s god made infallibly come to pass – and did not permit those people be/do otherwise
10 As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols,
br.d
Which Calvin’s god infallibly decreed come to pass within their brains – giving them no alternative.
11 As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’ ”
br.d
Here Calvin’s god is going to manipulate the human brains located in Samaria just as he has done for all the others.
12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has performed all His work
br.d
Calvin’s god’s work of determining every impulse that will come to pass within every human brain
He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.”
br.d
Following the same model – Calvin’s god is going to blame people for having impulses that he decreed irresistibly come to pass within their brain – so that he can punish them.
br.d
Following the same model – Calvin’s god is going to blame people for having impulses that he decreed irresistibly come to pass within their brain – so that he can punish them.
Roland
Well thanks for providing a Calvinistic interpretation that no Calvinist would write, preach or teach. But then again that’s just Calvinist being Calvinist; we’re dishonest! If we were honest with ourselves and others this is exactly what we would do. True Calvinism!!!
br.d Following the same model – Calvin’s god is going to blame people for having impulses that he decreed irresistibly come to pass within their brain – so that he can punish them.
Roland Well thanks for providing a Calvinistic interpretation that no Calvinist would write, preach or teach. But then again that’s just Calvinist being Calvinist; we’re dishonest! If we were honest with ourselves and others this is exactly what we would do. True Calvinism!!!
Ah! So Calvin wasn’t a calvinist then! Helm wasn’t a calvinist! Edwin Palmer wasn’t a calvinist! Piper isn’t a calvinist! But Roland – Roland is a true calvinist 😀
Pastor Loz
Ah! So Calvin wasn’t a calvinist then! Helm wasn’t a calvinist! Edwin Palmer wasn’t a calvinist! Piper isn’t a calvinist! But Roland – Roland is a true calvinist ��
roland
So is this how Calvin, Helm, Palmer, and Piper interpret Isaiah 10? Evidence please of them writing that Isaiah 10 teaches us that God causes every impulse in Assyria’s mind. Thanks
Roland
Evidence please of them writing that Isaiah 10 teaches us that God causes every impulse in Assyria’s mind. Thanks
br.d
Cmon Roland – I gave you quotes which provide evidence of the way Calvinists interpret ALL EVENTS.
Are you not LOGICAL enough to know that the event of Isaiah 10 falls into the category of ALL EVENTS
But I think you are in evasive maneuvers at this point! :-]
Roland
Well thanks for providing a Calvinistic interpretation that no Calvinist would write
br.d
We can see by the following Calvinist quotes – your representation of Calvinism is the REAL MISREPRESENTATION and not mine.
John Calvin
-quote
god is known not only as the creator of the worlds and the SOLE AUTHOR and disposer of all events.
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they [humans] are merely INSTRUMENTS INTO WHICH, into which god CONSTANTLY INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and TURNS and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE…. EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
Pastor LozA
h! So Calvin wasn’t a calvinist then! Helm wasn’t a calvinist! Edwin Palmer wasn’t a calvinist! Piper isn’t a calvinist! But Roland – Roland is a true calvinist ��
roland
You give me too much credit!!!😀
Pastor Loz
You need to read the passage more carefully. It was ALREADY in the King of Assyria’s heart to DESTROY and plunder NATIONS.
roland
Did you read my comment? I make note that it is already in the king’s heart to destroy and plunder nations. But you seem to dismiss that God sends, gives the king charge, and God does this so that the king of Assyria will plunder, take prey, and spoil.
Pastor Loz
So please don’t try to tell us that God compelled the king of Assyria to do anything he did not already desire and intend to do, and would not have done at some point regardless
roland
I never wrote that God compelled the king of Assyria.
Would the king of Assyria have done what he did at some point regardless? Regardless of what?
Pastor Loz
He told him to go.
roland
God told the king of Assyria to go? Alec Motyer in his commentary on Isaiah writes this about God sending Assyria: “I send is intensive (piel), the commission of a superior to an underling. I dispatch/’give him a command’ is not to be understood as a command openly spoken to the king of Assyria which he then failed to obey. Rather, we listen here to the Lord stating his secret, what he sovereignly intends to accomplish through Assyria.”
Pastor Luz
Nothing Calvinistic about it either.
roland
True, there is nothing Calvinistic about it but this is exactly what we believe the Bible reveals about God. God is sovereign, He is free to exercise His sovereignty, and He does exercise His sovereignty.
Pastor Loz: You need to read the passage more carefully. It was ALREADY in the King of Assyria’s heart to DESTROY and plunder NATIONS.
///// roland; Did you read my comment? I make note that it is already in the king’s heart to destroy and plunder nations. But you seem to dismiss that God sends, gives the king charge, and God does this so that the king of Assyria will plunder, take prey, and spoil. /////
Nowhere did I dismiss that God sent and gave the king that charge. Not once. Quote me where I did that.
Pastor Loz: So please don’t try to tell us that God compelled the king of Assyria to do anything he did not already desire and intend to do, and would not have done at some point regardless
///// roland: I never wrote that God compelled the king of Assyria. Would the king of Assyria have done what he did at some point regardless? Regardless of what? /////
Yes he would. He already was. Every chance he got. God sending him didn’t cause him to do anything he would not have done. It accelerated it.
Pastor Loz: He told him to go.
///// roland: God told the king of Assyria to go? Alec Motyer in his commentary on Isaiah writes this about God sending Assyria: “I send is intensive (piel), the commission of a superior to an underling. I dispatch/’give him a command’ is not to be understood as a command openly spoken to the king of Assyria which he then failed to obey. Rather, we listen here to the Lord stating his secret, what he sovereignly intends to accomplish through Assyria.”/////
I know you like quoting your philosophers, but sending and even more so “giving charge” is perfectly consistent with God speaking to the king of Assyria and is consistent with how God dealt with other pagan kings. So Alec’s speculation is moot. And your point contradicts your earlier claim that I seem to dismiss that God sent and gave charge to the king. At least try to be consistent.
Pastor Loz: Nothing Calvinistic about it either.
///// roland: True, there is nothing Calvinistic about it but this is exactly what we believe the Bible reveals about God. God is sovereign, He is free to exercise His sovereignty, and He does exercise His sovereignty. /////
No-one said He didn’t. Except Calvinists, when they say that God cannot give man LFW, as this will compromise His sovereignty. I am pointing out that the passage you quoted is not some calvinistic silver bullet and can better be understood by a non-calvinist interpretation.
Pastor Loz
So Alec’s speculation is moot.
roland
Alec was a biblical scholar and you’re saying he is just speculating about the book of Isaiah that he wrote a commentary on. In other words, you sound like you are saying that Alec doesn’t know what he is writing about.
Pastor Loz
Except Calvinists, when they say that God cannot give man LFW, as this will compromise His sovereignty.
roland
If God out of His sovereignty gives man LFW, then yes, God is compromising His sovereignty. He is limiting himself based on His own freedom.
But this is not why Calvinists believe that God CANNOT give man LFW. We believe God CAN but He DIDN’T because it is not in Scripture that God did this. It is another assumption or presupposition brought to Scripture by non-calvinists.
///// roland: Alec was a biblical scholar and you’re saying he is just speculating about the book of Isaiah that he wrote a commentary on. In other words, you sound like you are saying that Alec doesn’t know what he is writing about. /////
Yes, he is speculating. I don’t follow philosopher idols like you do. There are Muslim scholars who have studied and written about the Bible for decades. Does it make them right? There are non-calvinist scholars who have studied the Bible too. You sound like you are saying they don’t know what they are writing about.
Pastor Loz Except Calvinists, when they say that God cannot give man LFW, as this will compromise His sovereignty.
///// roland If God out of His sovereignty gives man LFW, then yes, God is compromising His sovereignty. He is limiting himself based on His own freedom. /////
LOL, thanks for proving exactly what I was saying. It shows that you don’t actually understand what sovereignty is. For you, sovereignty has to mean control. When God gives man LFW, within the parameters that God has set, He is not compromising His sovereignty one iota. He is simply choosing to EXERCISE HIS SOVEREIGNTY IN THE WAY THAT HE CHOOSES. And God gives examples in the Bible where He restrains Himself, so I guess you think at those points He was compromising His sovereignty. You just don’t like it. That’s why you don’t actually believe in God’s true freedom and sovereignty, for all your calvinistic lip-service.
Pastor Loz
I don’t follow philosopher idols like you do.
roland
Because I learn from other men by reading their books makes me an idolater?
Pastor Loz
There are Muslim scholars who have studied and written about the Bible for decades. Does it make them right? There are non-calvinist scholars who have studied the Bible too. You sound like you are saying they don’t know what they are writing about.
roland
It depends on what the muslim/non-calvinist scholar is saying about the Bible. That’s what makes them right not whether they are muslim or non-calvinist. I don’t believe non-calvinist scholars don’t know what they are writing about. For half of my life as a Christian all I read were non-calvinist authors. It was not until I came across Ligonier Ministries that I began to listen and read Reformed theology. Prior to that I had no idea Reformed theology even existed. After having studied Reformed theology for about 2-3 years I came to the conclusion that it is the most consistent form of Christianity as revealed in the Bible.
Pastor Loz
It shows that you don’t actually understand what sovereignty is. For you, sovereignty has to mean control.
roland
I do understand what God’s sovereignty is. Yes sovereignty does mean control.Definition of sovereignty
1a : supreme power especially over a body politic
b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY
c : controlling influence
2 : one that is sovereign
especially : an autonomous state
3 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
I also believe God meticulously exercises His sovereignty in creation and His creatures. You don’t because LFW does not allow for God to exercise His sovereignty as He pleases. God must operate under LFW so that the freewill of men is never violated because then it ceases to LFW. So God is bound by your philosophy of LFW.
Acts 4:27-29 Here’s one example of God exercising His sovereignty over Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles. Take note of verse 28 it is God’s work in pre-determining what these men will do so that Jesus is crucified.
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. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”
Pastor Loz
You just don’t like it. That’s why you don’t actually believe in God’s true freedom and sovereignty, for all your calvinistic lip-service.
roland
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God in His sovereignty gave man libertarian freewill. It is a presupposition you hold so that you can preserve man’s freewill. God is the most free being that exists. Man is under God’s dominion. In no way does man ever dictate what God does or says. Here’s my church’s MAN-MADE confession of faith on God and the Holy Trinity! The letters in parentheses are the Scripture references for what we believe about God, that is of course MAN-MADE!
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
I. There is but one only,(a) living, and true God:(b) who is infinite in being and perfection,(c) a most pure spirit,(d) invisible,(e) without body, parts,(f) or passions,(g) immutable,(h) immense,(i) eternal,(k) incomprehensible,(l) almighty,(m) most wise,(n) most holy,(o) most free,(p) most absolute,(q) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,(r) for His own glory;(s) most loving,(t) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;(u) the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;(w) and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,(x) hating all sin,(y) and who will by no means clear the guilty.(z)
///// roland: It depends on what the muslim/non-calvinist scholar is saying about the Bible. That’s what makes them right not whether they are muslim or non-calvinist. /////
And my comment was based on what Alec said. So there you go.
Pastor Loz: It shows that you don’t actually understand what sovereignty is. For you, sovereignty has to mean control.
///// Roland I do understand what God’s sovereignty is. Yes sovereignty does mean control. Definition of sovereignty
1a : supreme power especially over a body politic
b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY
c : controlling influence
2 : one that is sovereign ////
All you did there was to prove that you do indeed not understand what God’s sovereignty is. Sovereignty and control are NOT synonymous. Control is ONE POSSIBLE FORM of sovereignty, not the only one.
///// Roland I also believe God meticulously exercises His sovereignty in creation and His creatures. You don’t because LFW does not allow for God to exercise His sovereignty as He pleases. God must operate under LFW so that the freewill of men is never violated because then it ceases to LFW. So God is bound by your philosophy of LFW.//////
How ironic. You are the one who is saying God cannot exercise His sovereignty by giving men LFW. Whereas I recognize tat God is free and completely entitled to allow man LFW within the parameters He sets. He can do that. He is God, He is sovereign. You simply repeat the same error over and over, because you say, “God MUST operate under LFW”. I already explained that very clearly to you. I can’t make it any clearer. God sovereignly chooses to allow man LFW, and if He chooses, God can remove it or override it any time He wishes. So there is no MUST about it. No wonder Br D believes calvinists are dishonest. You are proving him right, for all your protestations.
///// Roland” Acts 4:27-29 Here’s one example of God exercising His sovereignty over Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles. Take note of verse 28 it is God’s work in pre-determining what these men will do so that Jesus is crucified. 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. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” /////
Again, you are simply parroting what you have been indoctrinated with. if you read the whole Bible and not just your Ligonier prescribed, cherry-picked, out of context “proof” texts, you would also know that Jesus said that He laid down His life – no-one took it from Him. From the beginning, God predetermined the offering of Christ as a perfect sacrifice for the redemption of man. He did not predetermine the sin that led to it. He did not compel or manipulate Judas, Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas to do what they did, any more than He did with the king of Assyria. They freely choses to do it and God knew that is what they would do. Looks like you need to refresh your memory by reading James 1:13 for a starter.
Pastor Loz You just don’t like it. That’s why you don’t actually believe in God’s true freedom and sovereignty, for all your calvinistic lip-service.
////// roland: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God in His sovereignty gave man libertarian freewill. It is a presupposition you hold so that you can preserve man’s freewill. God is the most free being that exists. Man is under God’s dominion. In no way does man ever dictate what God does or says. Here’s my church’s MAN-MADE confession of faith on God and the Holy Trinity! The letters in parentheses are the Scripture references for what we believe about God, that is of course MAN-MADE! /////
Another thing that has already been explained to you. Throughout the Bible God gives men genuine choices. Because He has sovereignly chosen to do so. He warns them of the consequences of making the wrong choices. He rebukes, disciplines and punishes men for making the wrong choices. He laments when they make the wrong choices. But sadly your god is a disingenous fake who is insincere about every one of those things. You make God out to be a liar in His dealings with Cain, with the Children of Israel, with Jerusalem. He secretly decrees, predetermines, ordains and renders certain that they will do the exact opposite of what He explixitly commands. That is an appalling blasphemy of the highest order. I really would not want to be in your shoes.
And still you carry on with your culticly indoctrinated straw men, because no non-calvinist in these threads is saying that man dictates what God does or says. Not one. And for you to suggest that they do is just flat out dishonesty. Again.
/////// Roland Of God, and of the Holy Trinity. I. There is but one only,(a) living, and true God:(b) who is infinite in being and perfection,(c) a most pure spirit,(d) invisible,(e) without body, parts,(f) or passions,(g) immutable,(h) immense,(i) eternal,(k) incomprehensible,(l) almighty,(m) most wise,(n) most holy,(o) most free,(p) most absolute,(q) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,(r) for His own glory;(s) most loving,(t) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;(u) the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;(w) and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,(x) hating all sin,(y) and who will by no means clear the guilty.(z) /////
Your confession is actually a joke in the reality of what calvinism teaches. Your god is not pure, not most holy, not most free, not most righteous, not most loving, not most merciful and not most just. Please understand that in this group you are not dealing with people who feel out of the stupid tree yesterday. Many of us have studied calvinism deeply for many years, debated thousands of calvinists, and some were deep into calvinism for many years before they were delivered from it. That’s why your arguments won’t wash in this group and will be challenged and corrected every time.
Pastor Loz
All you did there was to prove that you do indeed not understand what God’s sovereignty is. Sovereignty and control are NOT synonymous. Control is ONE POSSIBLE FORM of sovereignty, not the only one.
roland
I provided you with the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Pastor Loz
Again, you are simply parroting what you have been indoctrinated with.
roland
I quoted you Scripture that shows God exercising His sovereignty. I notice your low regard for Scripture in your comment that Scripture is just simply parroting. And you call yourself a “Pastor.”
Pastor Loz
That is an appalling blasphemy of the highest order. I really would not want to be in your shoes.
roland
The only blasphemy is your low regard for God and His Word. I used to be in your shoes as I used to believe in libertarian freewill. When I understood what is really is, I quit believing, especially after I learned its not even biblical. Nowhere to be found in Scripture.
Pastor Loz
Your confession is actually a joke in the reality of what calvinism teaches.
roland
Wow, such deep insight and analysis from “Pastor” Loz. You sound like my youngest child when he gets into arguments with his siblings. He resorts to name calling. Kind of like you.
Are you really a “Pastor”? If so, I feel really bad for the people that sit under your teaching and preaching. You don’t seem very gracious or loving, you sound rather legalistic and authoritative. You also sound arrogant as you don’t believe in reading other Christian’s thoughts since that leads to idolatry. That’s pretty sad if you’re really a pastor🤔☹️.
Feel free to have the last word as it is not constructive to continue a conversation when one party has resorted to child-like behavior, name calling.
Pastor Loz: All you did there was to prove that you do indeed not understand what God’s sovereignty is. Sovereignty and control are NOT synonymous. Control is ONE POSSIBLE FORM of sovereignty, not the only one.
///// roland: I provided you with the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. /////
No dictionary on earth defines sovereignty the way that calvinism defines it and misapplies it to God. Including the one you provided.
Pastor Loz: Again, you are simply parroting what you have been indoctrinated with.
///// roland I quoted you Scripture that shows God exercising His sovereignty. I notice your low regard for Scripture in your comment that Scripture is just simply parroting. And you call yourself a “Pastor.” /////
Scripture is not parroting. Calvinist regurgitation of their mis-interpretation of Scripture is.
Pastor Loz That is an appalling blasphemy of the highest order. I really would not want to be in your shoes.
///// roland The only blasphemy is your low regard for God and His Word. I used to be in your shoes as I used to believe in libertarian freewill. When I understood what is really is, I quit believing, especially after I learned its not even biblical. Nowhere to be found in Scripture. /////
It is precisely because my regard for God, His character and His Word is high that I reject the blasphemy of calvinism.
Pastor Loz Your confession is actually a joke in the reality of what calvinism teaches.
///// roland Wow, such deep insight and analysis from “Pastor” Loz. You sound like my youngest child when he gets into arguments with his siblings. He resorts to name calling. Kind of like you. Are you really a “Pastor”? If so, I feel really bad for the people that sit under your teaching and preaching. You don’t seem very gracious or loving, you sound rather legalistic and authoritative. You also sound arrogant as you don’t believe in reading other Christian’s thoughts since that leads to idolatry. That’s pretty sad if you’re really a pastor��☹. Feel free to have the last word as it is not constructive to continue a conversation when one party has resorted to child-like behavior, name calling./////
Irrelevant.
Pastor Loz: Nice try but incorrect. As explained to you in another comment, this has never been about what God CAN or COULD do, but about what He CHOOSES to do. You may get it one day.
//// roland: You are denying the logical conclusions of your system of LFW. LFW means that a human has the option to believe or not believe, the human is the source of the decision, and the decision or choice is up to the human. This is why LFW denies election and predestination because they seek to maintain human freedom over God’s sovereignty. Under LFW it is true that God cannot CHOOSE to save anyone but the choice is up to the person. ////
Still not getting it I see. It does take some people years to come out of your system of cultic indoctrination,, so I understand. God is the one who has sovereignly chosen to give human beings the freedom to accept or reject the gift of salvation. He could withdraw that freedom at any point if He chose to. He could override it at any point if He chose to.
LFW is perfectly consistent with election, because God sovereignly chose that those who come to be in Christ by faith are elected to salvation. LFW is perfectly consistent with predestination because God sovereignly chose that those who believe are predestined to be sanctified, conformed to His image, holy and blameless in His sight and glorified.
Man’s freedom is never OVER God’s sovereignty. Nice straw man. Man’s freedom is BECAUSE God has sovereignly chosen to allow wit.
Pastor Loz
Man’s freedom is BECAUSE God has sovereignty chosen to allow it.
br.d
It is at this point that we take note of how many Calvinist preachers/ministers strategically craft statements designed to MASQUERADE Calvinism as having this very pattern – when in fact this is the very pattern which the doctrine MUTUALLY EXCLUDES.
How many times have I heard John Piper or John MacArthur craft statements which can only be LOGICALLY COHERENT where divine “MERE” permission is the case. While Piper and MacArthurs’ underlying doctrine in no way allows for “MERE” permission to even exist.
Calvinists claim LFW doesn’t exist
But they then spend the rest of their time trying to manufacture FACADES of the very thing they assert doesn’t exist.
Its called DOUBLE-SPEAK
And it is one of the reasons why Calvinist ministers are observed as lacking intellectual honesty.
In Calvinism – misleading people with deceptive language is not a sin – it is a necessary evil.
br.d
Its called DOUBLE-SPEAK
And it is one of the reasons why Calvinist ministers are observed as lacking intellectual honesty.
In Calvinism – misleading people with deceptive language is not a sin – it is a necessary evil.
roland
Those are some severe accusations of Calvinist ministers – lacking intellectual honesty, misleading people, deceptive language, not a sin but it is a necessary EVIL.
roland
Those are some severe accusations of Calvinist ministers – lacking intellectual honesty, misleading people, deceptive language, not a sin but it is a necessary EVIL.
br.d
Misleading language surely can’t be described as a manifestation of honesty!
And when Calvinist ministers use language that paints a FALSE PICTURE we have a compromise in ethics.
And when this phenomenon is systemic – then we have to acknowledge that misleading people with deceptive language functions as a necessary evil – in order for Calvinist voices of influence to promote the doctrine.
You may also be interested in looking around on the internet for web-sites which address an ongoing concern for Calvinist pastors who lie their way into Churches.
That is not very complimentary statement for any pastor!
We have non-Calvinist ministers who are literally begging Calvinist pastors to be honest about their Calvinism when applying for a position at a non-Calvinist church.
When you have Christian ministers begging other Christian ministers to be honest – we have a problem
br.d
And when this phenomenon is systemic – then we have to acknowledge that misleading people with deceptive language functions as a necessary evil – in order for Calvinist voices of influence to promote the doctrine.
roland
Are you saying, by using the word systemic, that there is a significant number, maybe even all, Calvinist minister are lying to promote Calvinism?
I know a lot of Calvinists, teachers and preachers, I’ve never heard any of them lie about their Calvinism. Even in the sermons or teaching series I listen to, I don’t hear them lying about their Calvinism.
br.d
You may also be interested in looking around on the internet for web-sites which address an ongoing concern for Calvinist pastors who lie their way into Churches.
roland
I’ve heard about this but from what I’ve mostly read it appears to be rare. And when that’s the case of course is sinful as Christians we should be lying or deceiving.
WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY
Dr. Bella Depaulo Social Scientist, in her book: The Hows and Whys of Lies writes:
“Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’. A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a ‘target’.”
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties. Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
Altruism is in fact an excellent way to understand Calvinism’s euphemistic, equivocal, and cosmetic language. A battered wife may choose to restrain herself from communicating anything that may paint her husband in a bad light – even if she knows what she is communicating is false rather than truth-telling. She is simply protecting the ‘target.’ How much more would a Calvinist refrain from communicating anything that would in any way reflect badly on God or the Gospel.
He would feel worse if his language were truth-telling – because it would reveal things about the ‘target’ he doesn’t want people to see.
br.d
How much more would a Calvinist refrain from communicating anything that would in any way reflect badly on God or the Gospel.
He would feel worse if his language were truth-telling – because it would reveal things about the ‘target’ he doesn’t want people to see.
roland
I’m not going to deny that some Calvinist do this but to say it is systemic is false. All or even a significant number of Calvinists are not going around lying in order to deceive people. Every Calvinists I know from different churches, states, and countries, do not do this nor have they ever said they do this. You’ve made this accusation before about Calvinists but it is just false. You can come to my church we will happily provide you with a copy of our confession, its posted on our website, we are not trying to deceive people. We are very open about what we believe as well as with other churches we are in communion with.
As a Calvinist, I believe it is a glorious attribute of God that He is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty in creation. All Calvinists I know believe this. But I don’t know all Calvinists, so some could do it but not all and not a significant number of them.
I suspect this is your interpretation and perspective of our language. This is what you believe Calvinists are doing in significant numbers or probably all of us.
A young girl whose boyfriend is beating her makes up excuses for his behavior – blames herself for his problem.
She says: You don’t understand – Billy is a wonderful person and he would never desire to hurt me – if I didn’t get him upset then he would hit me”
Three questions:
1) Is she lying to herself?
2) If she is lying to herself – and she is conveying those things to others – then isn’t she also lying to others?
3) In her mind – does she have the express intention to lie to people – or is that simply a byproduct of her psychological condition?
br.d
Three questions:
1) Is she lying to herself?
2) If she is lying to herself – and she is conveying those things to others – then isn’t she also lying to others?
3) In her mind – does she have the express intention to lie to people – or is that simply a byproduct of her psychological condition?
roland
These questions are irrelevant to me. You are going to use them to say, “see, Calvinists do the exact same thing. They lie to themselves. They say they have good intentions, etc.” There is no point in answering the questions. I just reiterate what I wrote earlier. I do not deny that some Calvinists do what you say they do but to believe a significant number or all Calvinists lie to promote our beliefs is a lie. We believe Calvinism is true as it is derived from the Scripture. You believe Calvinism is false, we are spreading falsehoods, we even tell lies to ourselves, we are self-deceived. We lie to protect things.Those are absurd accusations!
br.d
Three questions:
1) Is she lying to herself?
2) If she is lying to herself – and she is conveying those things to others – then isn’t she also lying to others?
3) In her mind – does she have the express intention to lie to people – or is that simply a byproduct of her psychological condition?
roland
These questions are irrelevant to me. ….
br.d
Consider the possibility that that is in fact “Altruism” on your part.
I will answer the questions
1) Yes she is lying to herself
2) Yes – the same lies that she is telling herself – she is communicating to others
3) No in her mind she is not expressly intending to lie to people. Never the less she is in fact telling people things that are not true.
This is “Altruistic Dishonesty”
The person is not being honest with themselves
There is not intent whatsoever to lie to people
Never the less – internally the mind makes justifications – which allow the person to perceive themselves as telling the truth – when they in fact are not.
If you observe Calvinist language with the stainless steel scrutiny that I examine it with –
you will conclude as I have – that Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language.
Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language
It is language designed to produce an appearance.
The fact that that is the case – is telling all by itself!
Roland
Well thanks for providing a Calvinistic interpretation that no Calvinist would write, preach or teach
br.d
What part of my CRITICAL NOTE did you not understand?
Comments below reflect what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in the Calvinist belief system – and therefore what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the Calvinist’s reading of the text.
So comments below do not reflect what Calvinists say – because Calvinist are not willing to tell the WHOLE TRUTH concerning what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS with their system.
Have you noticed Roland – your practice if totally ignoring anything doesn’t affirm your narrative?
And you call that practice an manifestation of honesty?
br.d
Comments below reflect what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in the Calvinist belief system – and therefore what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the Calvinist’s reading of the text.
roland
Well, since we are following the logical conclusions of particular systems, let’s logically follow the conclusion of the libertarian freewill system.
Premise 1: All humans are born with libertarian freewill.
Premise 2: Libertarian freewill means “When an agent exercises free will over her choices and actions, her choices and actions are up to her. But up to her in what sense? As should be clear from our historical survey, two common (and compatible) answers are: (i) up to her in the sense that she is able to choose otherwise, or at minimum that she is able not to choose or act as she does, and (ii) up to her in the sense that she is the source of her action.” From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (it is my personal opinion based on my experience on this website that this is considered an invaluable source of material to define philosophical terms).
Premise 3: Since libertarian freewill means human decisions are up to them, able to choose from many options, and the human is the source of their actions, our decisions are also free from God. Because of libertarian freewill God cannot limit our options, interfere with our decision being up to us, and cannot in any away contribute to being the source of our actions.
Premise 4: When a human makes a decision to believe or put faith in Christ for salvation, that decision is up to the human, made from the option not to believe or put in faith in Christ, and the human is the source of that decision.
Premise 5: So when a human finally decides out of their libertarian freewill, that human is also free to glory in their decision because it is up to the human, there was the option not to believe in Jesus but the human made the decision to believe in Jesus, and the source of that decision to believe in Jesus is the human.
Conclusion: A proponent of libertarian freewill is free to glory in their own decisions because they made them, they made the best choice out of many options, and the source of their decision is them. They have no reason to glorify God because God did not contribute anything to their decision, He did not limit their decision, and He is not the source of their decision.
Roland
Well, since we are following the logical conclusions of particular systems, let’s logically follow the conclusion of the libertarian freewill system.
Premise 1: All humans are born with libertarian freewill.
br.d
More precisely – all humans are born with a limited degree of LFW
And those limitations are divinely set
Roland
Premise 2: Libertarian freewill means “When an agent exercises free will over her choices and actions, her choices and actions are up to her.
br.d
Correct!
Also:
3) LFW entails the ability to choose from a range of options – all of which exist for the individual to choose from
4) The person’s choice is not determined *FOR* them by an external mind
5) The person’s choice is not determined by factors outside of the person’s control
Roland
But up to her in what sense?
br.d
In the sense that John Calvin called “MERE” permission.
The THEOS “MERELY” permits the choice to be UP TO the person.
Which simply means he does not determined that choice for the person
Nor does he determined what choice the person will make
Roland
As should be clear from our historical survey, two common (and compatible) answers are: (i) up to her in the sense that she is able to choose otherwise, or at minimum that she is able not to choose or act as she does, and (ii) up to her in the sense that she is the source of her action.” From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (it is my personal opinion based on my experience on this website that this is considered an invaluable source of material to define philosophical terms).
Its much easier to simply refer to point (3) above which stipulates the ability to choose from a range of options – all of which exist for the individual to choose from. Thus the person can choose [A] or [NOT A]
Roland
Premise 3: Since libertarian freewill means human decisions are up to them, able to choose from many options, and the human is the source of their actions, our decisions are also free from God.
br.d
Yes – but that freedom is limited to the exact parameters set by the THEOS.
As stated above – using John Calvin’s language – the THEOS “MERELY” permits the person to be the DETERMINER of a choice.
Roland
Because of libertarian freewill God cannot limit our options, interfere with our decision being up to us, and cannot in any away contribute to being the source of our actions.
br.d
NO!
The options that are available are set by the THEOS
However in Exhaustive Divine Determinism – there is no such thing as Options(2) plural.
In Exhaustive Divine Determinism – only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN
For example with Adam eating the fruit.
On Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) Adam eating the fruit was RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Therefore by infallible decree – Calvin’s god gave to Adam only single option
Adam will infallibly eat the fruit – because no alternative to that which is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.
Therefore on Calvinism Adam was NOT PERMITTED to NOT eat the fruit.
Adam had no choice in the matter.
The choice was NOT “UP TO” Adam.
Roland
Premise 4: When a human makes a decision to believe or put faith in Christ for salvation, that decision is up to the human, made from the option not to believe or put in faith in Christ, and the human is the source of that decision.
br.d
It is TRUE to say the choice is UP TO the human.
It is TRUE to say the THEOS “MERELY” permits the human to be the DETERMINER of that choice.
It is TRUE to say the human has more than one option (exercise faith – or NOT exercise faith)
Roland
Premise 5: So when a human finally decides out of their libertarian freewill, that human is also free to glory in their decision because it is up to the human, there was the option not to believe in Jesus but the human made the decision to believe in Jesus, and the source of that decision to believe in Jesus is the human.
br.d
Choice in this circumstance is a gift of love.
The recipient of a gift cannot take credit for the gift.
He did nothing to earn the gift – so attempting to take credit for something that someone else provided for you is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT
Roland
Conclusion: A proponent of libertarian freewill is free to glory in their own decisions….
br.d
This conclusion is based on the FALSE Premise 5 which is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT
This conclusion also commits the logical fallacy of question begging.
Roland
They have no reason to glorify God because God did not contribute anything to their decision
br.d
This conclusion commits the logical fallacy of non-sequitur.
Two gifts are provided by the THEOS
1) The gift of salvation
2) The gift of choice.
Both gifts represent what the THEOS contributes.
Additionally the THEOS is a perfect being.
If he chooses to “MERELY” permit a creature to be the DETERMINER of something – then as a perfect being that takes away nothing from him.
Lastly if you do not have LFW – then
1) For any deliberation – multiple options do not exist for you from which to choose.
Only one single RENDERED-CERTAIN option can LOGICALLY exist.
2) Since only one single option is every available to you – it LOGICALLY follows – you have NO “choice” – because the definition of “Choice” LOGICALLY entails at least 2 options.
3) Every time you sin – it was the case that your sinning was RENDERED-CERTAIN – as the only option granted to you – and as such you had no choice – and there is NO escape from your sin. Therefore the scripture that says he makes a way of escape is made void.
4) Without LFW your brain is not permitted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter. Because all such choices are made *FOR* your brain and not *BY* your brain. And if that is the case, then all of this dialog is pointless – since your brain is incapable of discerning TRUE from FALSE on anything.
br.d
Two gifts are provided by the THEOS
1) The gift of salvation
2) The gift of choice.
roland
In order for it to be a true gift, it must be received. Any gift that is not received is no gift at all. Do humans have a “choice” to receive the gift of choice as they do for the gift of salvation? Or are we born with a gift that we just have in our nature?
If humans need to make a choice to receive the gift of choice, then it logically concludes that we must continually keep receiving the gift of choice in order to have a choice to receive the gift of choice? It never ends, it goes back forever! If God offers the gift of choice as He does for salvation, how do humans ever have the gift of choice without receiving it like salvation? Or, God doesn’t offer us the gift of choice, we are just born with this “gift.”
roland
In order for it to be a true gift, it must be received. Any gift that is not received is no gift at all.
br.d
This fails with the fallacy of non-sequitur
You called it a gift – because it is a gift
Thus the fact that it is a gift is established.
Whether it is received or not does not auto-magically make it not be what it is.
Roland
Do humans have a “choice” to receive the gift of choice as they do for the gift of salvation?
br.d
Obviously – the THEOS would have to “MERELY” permit the human the choice to receive the gift
Roland
Or are we born with a gift that we just have in our nature?
br.d
It doesn’t really matter – because either way it is from the THEOS
Roland
If humans need to make a choice to receive the gift of choice, then it logically concludes that we must continually keep receiving the gift of choice in order to have a choice to receive the gift of choice?
br.d
If this were TRUE for humans – then it would have to be TRUE for the THEOS as well
Because – as we’ve defined LFW – the THEOS has all of its attributes.
And thus – the same conclusion of impossibility due to infinite regress would apply to him
And I doubt you would want to go there.
br.d
It doesn’t really matter – because either way it is from the THEOS
roland
The issue of choice turns on your answer to my question. Are humans born with the gift of choice or does the gift of choice need to be received as the gift of salvation needs to be received?
There needs to be an origin for the gift of choice: either we have it when we are born or we don’t. You called choice a gift. How do humans get this gift of choice?
br.d
It doesn’t really matter – because either way it is from the THEOS
roland
The issue of choice turns on your answer to my question. Are humans born with the gift of choice or does the gift of choice need to be received as the gift of salvation needs to be received?
br.d
If they are born with it – then its a gift just as much as having a beating heart is a gift.
Roland
There needs to be an origin for the gift of choice:
br.d
Obviously since its a gift – the origin is the creator.
Your heart beating is a gift.
Do you take credit for that?
Your lungs breathing is a gift
Do you take credit for that?
Every attribute of you as a created entity is a gift from the creator.
Did you earn anything that you were given?
Of course not!
The idea that you would boast about having a beating heart or breathing lungs *AS-IF* you created them for yourself – is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.
Same thing applies with the gift of choice.
br.d
Obviously since its a gift – the origin is the creator.
Your heart beating is a gift.
Do you take credit for that?
roland
No I cannot take credit for that. But I can take credit if I have a healthier heart than others because I MADE BETTER CHOICES than them to keep a healthy heart. It is the same for the gift of salvation. If one person chooses to believe in Jesus and another chooses not to believe, the one who chose to believe gains boasting rights.
Besides, what is the distinction if everyone has the same ability to believe or not believe in Jesus? What makes the believer distinct from the non-believer when it comes to their choices? Under libertarian freewill definitely not anything outside of themself, definitely not God, it is something that must be found in the human making the choice. This is why Calvinists call Arminian and Provisionist theology man centered.
If the human made the choice out of many options, the choice to believe but not to believe, and they are the source of their choice, there’s no reason to glory in anybody else but yourself. It is the logical conclusion of libertarian freewill. It is in our experiences everyday and no rational person would give credit to another when there is no credit due.
br.d
Obviously since its a gift – the origin is the creator.
Your heart beating is a gift.
Do you take credit for that?
roland
No I cannot take credit for that. But I can take credit if I have a healthier heart than others because I MADE BETTER CHOICES than them to keep a healthy heart.
br.d
And you were the one who created the human function of choice and the human function of intelligence without a creator?
And you think that argument is biblical????
Roland
It is the same for the gift of salvation. If one person chooses to believe in Jesus and another chooses not to believe, the one who chose to believe gains boasting rights.
br.d
So you are given the gift of choice and the gift of intelligence – and you think you can boast that you created them all by yourself!
Good one Roland!
br.d
And you think that argument is biblical????
roland
I am not making biblical arguments, I am making logical arguments, I am arguing from reason.
You still haven’t answered the question: What is the distinction between the person who chooses to believe in Jesus and the person who does not choose to believe in Jesus?
You can’t answer it because of your libertarian freewill.
roland
I am not making biblical arguments, I am making logical arguments, I am arguing from reason.
br.d
So you’re arguing for something that you know is not biblical.
And you think I do that???
Roland
You still haven’t answered the question: What is the distinction between the person who chooses to believe in Jesus and the person who does not choose to believe in Jesus?
br.d
I will give you both systems:
On Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) there are no such thing as multiple options because only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN. Therefore on Calvinism there is no such thing as a person having both options – believe or NOT believe. And without multiple options choice does not exist. What does exist is an infallibly decreed inclination.
On Calvinism – a person will have an inclination to believe or an inclination to not believe.
But only one of those is possible because only one inclination can be RENDERED-CERTAIN.
If “believe” is the inclination that is infallibly decreed – then no other inclination is permitted at pain of falsifying the infallible decree. The other inclination is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED and therefore not available to the creature.
If “NOT believe” is the inclination that is infallibly decreed – then no other inclination is permitted at pain of falsifying the infallible decree. The other inclination is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED and therefore not available to the creature.
On LFW
1) Multiple options exist for a creature to choose from.
2) Those multiple options include “believe” and “NOT believe”
3) The creature is “MERELY” permitted to be the determiner of which one he chooses
///// Roland:according to the libertarian freewill proponent, God COULD never have saved them without their free choice. /////
Incorrect. This has never been about what God CAN/COULD do. God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore He can choose whatever He wants and do whatever He chooses. It’s about what God CHOOSES
///// Roland: according to the libertarian freewill proponent, God COULD never have saved them without their free choice. /////
Incorrect. This has never been about what God CAN/COULD do. God is sovereign and omnipotent. He can choose whatever He wants and do whatever He chooses. This is about what God CHOOSES to do. God can CHOOSE to give every person a genuine choice between accepting and rejecting the gift of salvation. Calvinists try to claim that He can’t. In doing so they try to diminish His sovereign freedom.
Pastor Loz
This has never been about what God CAN/COULD do. God is sovereign and omnipotent. He can choose whatever He wants and do whatever He chooses.
roland
I repeat, God COULD NOT save whom He chooses because of the libertarian freewill proponent’s idea of freewill. God is LIMITED by human freedom. It is plainly stated in libertarian freewill as defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Pastor Loz
This is about what God CHOOSES to do. God can CHOOSE to give every person a genuine choice between accepting and rejecting the gift of salvation.
roland
Did God choose to give everyone this choice? Would that include Judas? Did Judas have an opportunity to make a free choice not to betray Jesus?
Pastor Loz
Calvinists try to claim that He can’t. In doing so they try to diminish His sovereign freedom.
roland
Calvinists never claim that God can’t give everyone a genuine free choice. We believe that God did not do this as Scripture doesn’t tell us everyone has the same choice to receive Jesus. It is another assumption brought to Scripture by noncalvinists.
br.d
Because all such choices are made *FOR* your brain and not *BY* your brain.
roland
No, I make choices, all humans make choices, the choices are not free as defined in libertarian freewill.
br.d
He did nothing to earn the gift – so attempting to take credit for something that someone else provided for you is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT
roland
Logically it makes perfect sense. When your boss pays you for the work you did, do you give your boss credit for the work you did? Do you share your earnings with your boss? Do you tell your employer: you know, I have libertarian freewill to do the work or not do the work, but I chose to do the work. Also, since I have libertarian freewill, I am the source of my decisions to work or not to work. Also, operating from the first two premises, my choices are up to me, not anyone else, the choice to work and do the work is my choice. You did not contribute anything but the money. Therefore, I can glory in all the work and earnings I have because I did it. But I will share my earnings with you even though you did not do anything to make me choose to work and do the work.
Same goes for a libertarian freewill decision to choose to believe in Jesus. God only provided the salvation but according to the libertarian freewill proponent, God COULD never have saved them without their free choice. Just like you don’t glorify your employer for your earnings, you don’t glorify God for the freewill decisions you make.
Just like you tell me that I don’t make choices because God makes them for me. Libertarian proponents have no reason to glorify God because God does not CONTRIBUTE anything to your decision. It would be a dishonest glorifying of God for something God is not the source of, your choice to believe in Jesus.
br.d
Additionally the THEOS is a perfect being.
If he chooses to “MERELY” permit a creature to be the DETERMINER of something – then as a perfect being that takes away nothing from him.
roland
Fully agree the THEOS is a perfect being. In Calvinism, when God determines all things it doesn’t take nothing away from Him.
br.d
Because all such choices are made *FOR* your brain and not *BY* your brain.
roland
No, I make choices, all humans make choices, the choices are not free as defined in libertarian freewill.
br.d
1) Not on Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
On Exhaustive Divine Determinism – a THEOS determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
That must include every determination that comes to pass within your brain.
And remember – there is no such thing as multiple options in this context
Because it is only LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to RENDER-CERTAIN one single option.
The act of choosing requires at least 2 options [A] or [NOT A]
It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to only RENDER-CERTAIN one of those options – not both.
Therefore your brain is never permitted the act of making a choice.
br.d
He did nothing to earn the gift – so attempting to take credit for something that someone else provided for you is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT
roland
Logically it makes perfect sense. When your boss pays you for the work you did, do you give your boss credit for the work you did?
br.d
No but your boss can give you credit for what you earned.
Roland
Do you share your earnings with your boss?
br.d
Yes – if that is what he establishes
Roland
You did not contribute anything but the money. Therefore, I can glory in all the work and earnings I have because I did it.
br.d
This is not the model of a gift
It is the model of earning something through work.
Obvious something is earned.
The worker may over emphasis what he earned – but that is a tangential error.
Roland
But I will share my earnings with you even though you did not do anything to make me choose to work and do the work. Same goes for a libertarian freewill decision to choose to believe in Jesus.
br.d
This once again commits the fallacy of question begging.
You are AUTO-MAGICALLY assuming the model of earning – rather the model of gift
Roland
God only provided the salvation
br.d
How soon your brain forgets he also provides the gift of choice.
Roland
but according to the libertarian freewill proponent, God COULD never have saved them without their free choice.
br.d
This commits the fallacy of Non-Sequitur.
Just because god creates terms with which he wants people to comply doesn’t equate to limited options on his part.
The Calvinist brain so consistently manifests AUTO-QUESTION-BEGGING :-]
The rest of your post follows from this error – so it just gets further of course.
br.d
Comments below reflect what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in the Calvinist belief system – and therefore what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the Calvinist’s reading of the text.
roland
Comments below reflect what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in the libertarian freewill system and therefore what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the libertarian freewill proponent’s response to the objection that libertarian freewill cannot be true based on the truth that God’s foreknowledge is perfect and He knows all decision every human will make.
Premise 1: God has perfect foreknowledge of all human decisions that will ever be made.
Premise 2: This means that any decision made in the present or the future is bound by the truth that God has perfect knowledge. God already knows what the “free” decisions of humans will be.
Premise 3: Since the future decisions are already known, the human making those decisions are bound unless God’s knowledge is not perfect or is flawed.
Conclusion: Human decisions are not free because God already knows what decisions will be.
In order to maintain true libertarian freewill God cannot have perfect foreknowledge. He cannot know the future decisions of humans. If God has perfect foreknowledge, then our libertarian freewill is not really free. Therefore, in order to maintain libertarian freewill, God cannot have perfect foreknowledge of all future human decisions. The only consistent rational position for the proponent of libertarian freewill is open theism, that is just as human decisions are being freely made, God is learning what those decisions are.
roland
Comments below reflect what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in the libertarian freewill system and therefore what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the libertarian freewill proponent’s response to the objection that libertarian freewill cannot be true based on the truth that God’s foreknowledge is perfect and He knows all decision every human will make.
Roland
Premise 1: God has perfect foreknowledge of all human decisions that will ever be made.
br.d
Agreed
Roland
Premise 2: This means that any decision made in the present or the future is bound by the truth that God has perfect knowledge. God already knows what the “free” decisions of humans will be.
br.d
Agreed – because of Omniscience
Roland
Premise 3: Since the future decisions are already known, the human making those decisions are bound unless God’s knowledge is not perfect or is flawed.
br.d
FALSE
This would constitute a CLOSED future
And divine knowledge of the future does not necessitate a CLOSED future because Middle Knowledge facilitates a way of full and comprehensive knowledge of what a creature – using LFW – WOULD do in any circumstance.
Thus it was divinely known that IF King Saul came down to the city to get David, the people of the city would certainly deliver David over to Saul.
Even though there was divine knowledge of that event – it did not happen
Therefore it was not a CLOSED future
In other words – it was not “bound”.
Roland
Conclusion: Human decisions are not free because God already knows what decisions will be.
br.d
This conclusion is fails – based on Premise 3 which fails logically.
The rest of your thinking is going to follow from that error – and so like an arrow shooting off course – the conclusions are simply going move further away from the bulls-eye.
br.d
The rest of your thinking is going to follow from that error – and so like an arrow shooting off course – the conclusions are simply going move further away from the bulls-eye.
roland
My thinking is right on. It is rejected by you on the basis of middle knowledge. Because you injected middle knowledge into my syllogism, it is now false?
Middle knowledge denies that God has perfect knowledge of all future human decisions. Either God knows them all or does not know any of them. I know you will accuse me of a false dilemma.
br.d
The rest of your thinking is going to follow from that error – and so like an arrow shooting off course – the conclusions are simply going move further away from the bulls-eye.
roland
My thinking is right on. It is rejected by you on the basis of middle knowledge. Because you injected middle knowledge into my syllogism, it is now false?
br.d
No what you fell into was the fallacy of false dichotomy
Your premise was – the only way a THEOS can know the future is to determine it.
This is a FALSE premise.
And I showed you the event in scripture -which provides evidence of divine knowledge of an event – without that event being determined.
Roland
Middle knowledge denies that God has perfect knowledge of all future human decisions.
br.d.
This commits the fallacy of question begging again.
Again – the event of king Saul and David clearly shows divine certainty of what would come to pass without that event being determined.
Roland
Either God knows them all or does not know any of them.
br.d
This is not the REAL issue for you.
The REAL issue is HOW does he know them.
John Calvin tells us HOW the future is known in Calvinism
-quote
He foresees ONLY as a consequence of the decree
Middleknowledge however provides a means of HOW there can be full and comprehensive knowledge of what a creature WOULD – using LFW – do under any circumstance the creature is put into.
Your problem is your mind can’t accept anything but Calvinism.
And in Calvinism – there is only one way that divine knowledge is obtained.
And because you can’t accept anything but Calvinism – you can’t accept Middleknowledge.
Roland
Middle knowledge denies that God has perfect knowledge of all future human decisions.
br.d
This is your position because the only way Calvin’s god can know an impulse that will come to pass in your brain is to determine that impulse *FOR* you.
And at the same time – you assert that – you also reject the fact that on that view Calvin’s god determines your choice *FOR* you.
Your rejection of that is in full contradiction to your assertion of divine knowledge.
On your system, if Calvin’s god does not determine your inclinations *FOR* you – then he can’t know what your inclinations will be.
You can’t have it both ways.
As a Calvinist – you have to remain faithful with the assertion that the only way Calvin’s god can know your inclinations is to determine them.
Thus Calvin’s god determines your inclinations *FOR* you and thus your inclinations are not UP TO you.
therefore as a Calvinist the function of making a choice doesn’t exist for you.
What exists for you are inclinations that come to pass within your brain which are infallible and thus irresistible.
Every one of those inclinations is determined at the foundation of the world before you exist.
And Calvin’s god doesn’t share what he function of determining what will come to pass with you.
Look at it through simple math
Let [X] = whatsoever comes to pass
Calvin’s god determines 100% of [X]
Leaving ZERO% of [X] left UN-determined
Leaving ZERO% of [X] left over for you to determine.
[X] minus 100% [X] = ZERO% [X]
So on Calvinism he determines everything – and you determine nothing
br.d
Your problem is your mind can’t accept anything but Calvinism.
And in Calvinism – there is only one way that divine knowledge is obtained.
And because you can’t accept anything but Calvinism – you can’t accept Middleknowledge.
roland
You have the same problem as I have. You cannot accept divine determinism because you cannot except anything but libertarian freewill. I don’t accept middle knowledge because it is false and is not Biblical. I cannot understand how anyone can accept the idea of middle knowledge except on the basis of their desire to maintain libertarian freewill.
Middle knowledge is a contradiction because it states the humans have libertarian freewill and yet in middle knowledge human free choice is eternally certain if the given circumstances obtain. God can know human decisions based on the circumstances they’re in. Future contingent choices are merely possibilities unless determined by something prior to them. Also, if middle knowledge is true, it posits an impersonal, fatalistic determinism as all human choices in possible situations exist as eternal truths. So, it is almost as if a person is being put into a reality that already exists.
Before creation and logically antecedent to God’s decree, these choices appear before God as a fixed reality, and God can only passively receive them as immutable facts. At the moment of creation, people do not yet exist, but their choices are set as if by nameless fate. Also, if I remember correctly as I have not read about middle knowledge for quite while, God chooses the circumstances that become reality, He chooses which human choices will take place, including evil choices that make life miserable and even lead some people to hell. If you are seeking to escape difficulties arising from God’s determining all future events, middle knowledge actually doesn’t help.
roland
You have the same problem as I have. You cannot accept divine determinism because you cannot except anything but libertarian freewill.
br.d
How does your brain determine TRUE from FALSE without Calvin’s god “MERELY” permitting it to do so?
And Calvin’s god doesn’t “MERELY” permit anything.
Here is how it works in Calvinism:
1) What is decreed is permitted
2) What is NOT decreed is NOT permitted
Thus you are not the DETERMINER of any inclination that comes to pass within your brain.
Thus your brain is not permitted the epistemic function of Determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
The only way you can live with that – is to treat your system *AS-IF* an attribute of LFW exists for you – while you claim it doesn’t
You’re like the man who sees a bird which has webbed feet, a beak, and wings, it quakes and swims and flies. And that man’s claim – is that ducks don’t exist.
You take the attributes of LFW and apply them to yourself – and then claim LFW doesn’t exist :-]
Br.d
Thus you are not the DETERMINER of any inclination that comes to pass within your brain.
roland
You cannot use the word inclination as it doesn’t exist in libertarian freewill. You can’t have inclinations because that would mean something other than the human is influencing their free choice. Unless the inclination freely arises from within the person, or there is a choice to receive or not receive the inclination, or the person is the source of the inclination.
Br.d
Thus you are not the DETERMINER of any inclination that comes to pass within your brain.
roland
You cannot use the word inclination as it doesn’t exist in libertarian freewill.
br.d
My statement has to do with the system of Determinism not LFW
Therefore my statement is TRUE.
You are not the DETERMINER of any inclination that comes to pass within your brain.
And on Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as multiple options – because only one option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN.
TRUE and FALSE represent 2 options.
On Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) only one of them is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to be available to you…..that one single option which was RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Choice in order to be a choice – requires at least 2 options [A] or [NOT A]
Again on Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) only one of them is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to be available to you…..that one single option which is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Therefore on Calvinism
1) Choice does not exist for you.
2) The epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE does not exist for you.
br.d
You are not the DETERMINER of any inclination that comes to pass within your brain.
And on Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is no such thing as multiple options – because only one option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN
roland
The same can be said of middle knowledge: the only one option available to you is the set circumstances that would RENDER-CERTAIN your FREE CHOICE.
br.d
Choice in order to be a choice – requires at least 2 options [A] or [NOT A]
roland
True but in middle knowledge any 2 options that are given to you are RENDERED CERTAIN by the set of circumstances under which God would certainly know you would make the choice. You are not really as free as you think you are with middle knowledge.
br.dT
herefore on Calvinism
1) Choice does not exist for you.
2) The epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE does not exist for you.
roland
It doesn’t exist with middle knowledge either as the circumstance in which your choice is made is given because it is certain that the choice you make would be made under the set of circumstances.
roland
The same can be said of middle knowledge: the only one option available to you is the set circumstances that would RENDER-CERTAIN your FREE CHOICE.
br.d
FALSE
Middle knowledge is knowledge of what the creature – using LFW – WOULD do under any circumstance.
br.d
Choice in order to be a choice – requires at least 2 options [A] or [NOT A]
roland
True but in middle knowledge any 2 options that are given to you are RENDERED CERTAIN by the set of circumstances under which God would certainly know you would make the choice.
br.d
See answer above
Therefore on Calvinism
1) Choice does not exist for you.
2) The epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE does not exist for you.
roland
It doesn’t exist with middle knowledge either as the circumstance in which your choice is made is given because it is certain that the choice you make would be made under the set of circumstances.
br.d
See answer above.
Your error start there – and simply continues
It is TRUE that with Middleknowledge – circumstances can be limited.
That is the discretion of the THEOS
If the THEOS reduces all options down to one single option – then LFW is ruled out in that context.
If the the THEOS grants multiple options – then LFW has room to exist.
br.d
FALSE
Middle knowledge is knowledge of what the creature – using LFW – WOULD do under any circumstance.
roland
True but the only circumstances that are realized are the ones in which it would be RENDERED CERTAIN that you would make that decision. You are never really given the “any circumstance” under a theory of middle knowledge.
br.d
It is TRUE that with Middleknowledge – circumstances can be limited.
That is the discretion of the THEOS
roland
Wait, I’m confused. Can you explain how “the discretion of the THEOS” and libertarian freewill are compatible? I’m curious how that works.
roland
True but the only circumstances that are realized are the ones in which it would be RENDERED CERTAIN that you would make that decision. You are never really given the “any circumstance” under a theory of middle knowledge.
br.d
You are conflating Exhaustive Determinism with Middle-knowledge.
If multiple options are granted – then you don’t have the phenomenon of things being RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Therefore the “any circumstances” does exist.
br.d
It is TRUE that with Middleknowledge – circumstances can be limited.
That is the discretion of the THEOS
roland
Wait, I’m confused. Can you explain how “the discretion of the THEOS” and libertarian freewill are compatible? I’m curious how that works.
That answer is found in my next statement – where I said – if option(s) plural – are reduced down to one single option then LFW is ruled out. And so isn’t choice.
br.d
You are conflating Exhaustive Determinism with Middle-knowledge.
If multiple options are granted – then you don’t have the phenomenon of things being RENDERED-CERTAIN
br.d
It is TRUE that with Middleknowledge – circumstances can be limited.
That is the discretion of the THEOS
roland
It sounds like middle knowledge is soft determinism. The THEOS has discretion but He doesn’t determine anything. This means the THEOS is in control of some things?
roland
It sounds like middle knowledge is soft determinism.
br.d
Yes – is is embraced by Calvinists because of that.
It contains a limited degree of LFW for the creature sufficient to hold people accountable for what they are permitted to determine and thus meets what those Calvinists who embrace it consider to be a biblical model of ethics and logic. While at the same time it is deterministic enough for them.
Historically there have been many Calvinists who have embraced some limited degree of LFW but without MiddleKnowledge -and they accepted it by punting to mystery. So Calvinists who embrace Middleknowledge say it provides a more satisfying answer.
Additionally they consider it to fit better with the biblical assertion that man is made after the divine image – since the attributes of LFW are found in the divine image.
Roland
The THEOS has discretion but He doesn’t determine anything.
br.d
No
The fact that he has discretion tells you he determines pretty much everything.
But he doesn’t determined *FOR* creatures – things that he holds them accountable for.
Because in such case he would be attributing a degree of control to them that he knows is FALSE.
And in such case he would be committing a falsehood
Roland
This means the THEOS is in control of some things?
br.d
That depends on how one defines control
If by control we mean he designs people to function robotically – so that he can control every movement and every impulse within their brains – which grants them no choice in the matter of anything – and no ability to discern TRUE from FALSE – then no – he doesn’t exercise that degree of control.
Just enough control to hold himself accountable for what is his – and hold them accountable for what he permits to be theirs.
///// Roland The THEOS has discretion but He doesn’t determine anything. /////
br.d No. The fact that he has discretion tells you he determines pretty much everything. But he doesn’t determine *FOR* creatures – things that he holds them accountable for. Because in such case he would be attributing a degree of control to them that he knows is FALSE.
And in such case he would be committing a falsehood
///// Roland This means the THEOS is in control of some things? /////
br.d That depends on how one defines control If by control we mean he designs people to function robotically – so that he can control every movement and every impulse within their brains – which grants them no choice in the matter of anything – and no ability to discern TRUE from FALSE – then no – he doesn’t exercise that degree of control. Just enough control to hold himself accountable for what is his – and hold them accountable for what he permits to be theirs.
Pastor Loz: Perfectly put, Br D. Thanks for correcting Roland and other calvnists’ false dichotomy that God either has to determine everything, or He determines nothing 🙂
I’ve been totally appreciating your posts!!!
I know we end up going around in circles with Calvinists – because their minds are captured.
The Lord certainly has the desire and more than enough power to deliver them from its mental ensnarement.
They just have to love Him – more than it.
Sincere thanks
br.d :-]
br.d
The Lord certainly has the desire and more than enough power to deliver them from its mental ensnarement.
roland
Under your system of libertarian freewill the Lord cannot deliver us. Humans can only make the choice according to libertarian freewill theology. You are thinking *AS-IF* God has the power to deliver us but He doesn’t.
//// roland Under your system of libertarian freewill the Lord cannot deliver us. Humans can only make the choice according to libertarian freewill theology. You are thinking *AS-IF* God has the power to deliver us but He doesn’t. /////
Nice try but incorrect. As explained to you in another comment, this has never been about what God CAN or COULD do, but about what He CHOOSES to do. You may get it one day.
Pastor Loz
Nice try but incorrect. As explained to you in another comment, this has never been about what God CAN or COULD do, but about what He CHOOSES to do. You may get it one day.
roland
You are denying the logical conclusions of your system of LFW. LFW means that a human has the option to believe or not believe, the human is the source of the decision, and the decision or choice is up to the human.
This is why LFW denies election and predestination because they seek to maintain human freedom over God’s sovereignty. Under LFW it is true that God cannot CHOOSE to save anyone but the choice is up to the person.
Pastor Loz This has never been about what God CAN/COULD do. God is sovereign and omnipotent. He can choose whatever He wants and do whatever He chooses.
///// roland I repeat, God COULD NOT save whom He chooses because of the libertarian freewill proponent’s idea of freewill. God is LIMITED by human freedom. It is plainly stated in libertarian freewill as defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. //////
Well I am not a compulsive quoter of human sources like you so I really don’t give a flying rat’s behind about what your Stanford says. Last time I checked (which was very recently), it’s not the Bible So there’s that.
Pastor Loz This is about what God CHOOSES to do. God can CHOOSE to give every person a genuine choice between accepting and rejecting the gift of salvation.
///// roland Did God choose to give everyone this choice? Would that include Judas? Did Judas have an opportunity to make a free choice not to betray Jesus? /////
Yes He did. Jesus knew what Judas would choose. His knowledge did not cause Judas’s choice, it reflected it.
Pastor Loz Calvinists try to claim that He can’t. In doing so they try to diminish His sovereign freedom.
///// roland Calvinists never claim that God can’t give everyone a genuine free choice. We believe that God did not do this as Scripture doesn’t tell us everyone has the same choice to receive Jesus. It is another assumption brought to Scripture by noncalvinists. /////
Speak for yourself, I have encountered plenty who do say that. Trouble is your god has unchangeably ordained for calvinists not to be able to get their story straight between them. Apparently that gives him maximal glory. Can’t say I am really seeing it myself.
roland
Under your system of libertarian freewill the Lord cannot deliver us. Humans can only make the choice according to libertarian freewill theology. You are thinking *AS-IF* God has the power to deliver us but He doesn’t.
br.d
Nope!
Look at Jesus’ healings of people – and see how many of them are preceded by a command.
The blind man is commanded to wash his face.
The 10 lepers are commanded to present themselves to the priest.
The lame man is commanded to take up his mat and walk
As a matter of fact – almost all of Jesus’ healings follow that exact model.
So we ask the question – are these people functioning as robots – while scripture treats them *AS-IF* they are not?
Is the divine mind controlling every impulse within their brains – while treating them *AS-IF* he isn’t?
On Calvinism that would be the case.
However – if instead he is “MERELY” permitting them to be the Determiners of their choice to obey his command – then they are not function as robots. Never the less they did not heal themselves. They do not have the power to heal themselves.
The only power they are granted is that power He “MERELY” permits them to have – which is the power of choice – which he gives them as a gift of love.
Satan on the other hand follows the model of controlling the human mind.
And we find those examples also in the Gospels.
If you read any testimony from ministries who deal with casting out spirits and delivering people from demonic influences – you will see this pattern.
And that is why there is no such thing as a Calvinist minister casting out demons or delivering people from demonic influences.
He would be delivering them from what in his mind is the control of god – rather than a demonic spirit.
But every demon spirit in hell knows that in order to influence and control humans – requires tricking the human to give of LFW.
The demon spirit works to trick the human into giving it up in incremental steps.
This is why spirits are called SEDUCING spirits.
If a human being doesn’t have LFW the spirit would be SEDUCING god not the human.
br.d
The only way you can live with that – is to treat your system *AS-IF* an attribute of LFW exists for you – while you claim it doesn’t
roland
Well, under libertarian freewill the only way to glorify God is to live *AS-IF* God contributed something to your free decision to choose to believe in Christ. While you claim you can do so, there’s no logical reason to give someone credit where there is no credit due.
Libertarian Freewill: Make a free decision to believe in Christ and glorify God *AS-IF* He saved you apart from your free choice.
roland
Well, under libertarian freewill the only way to glorify God is to live *AS-IF* God contributed something to your free decision to choose to believe in Christ.
br.d
He created all of it.
What’s wrong with giving him credit for that?
Roland
While you claim you can do so, there’s no logical reason to give someone credit where there is no credit due.
br.d
No credit do to myself for sure!!
I didn’t create my heart, my lungs, or the ability to have multiple options from which to choose,
They are all gift.
All credit goes to the creator
For you to insist otherwise – is to refuse to acknowledge him as the giver.
Roland
Libertarian Freewill: Make a free decision to believe in Christ and glorify God *AS-IF* He saved you apart from your free choice.
br.d
No
The phenomenon of *AS-IF* thinking is something found with beliefs such as Determinism and Solipsism.
The Determinist – as John Calvin illustrates – is forced to treat Determinism *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to perceive himself as having multiple options from which to choose, and to perceive himself as having choice, and to perceive himself as the determiner of a choice.
The Solipsist is similarly DOUBLE-MINDED, because he must treat other humans *AS-IF* they are not figments of his imagination in the face of his doctrine which stipulates they are.
The Non-Calvinist holds that a divine creator created every part of his being including the gift of choice and the gift of salvation. Since he holds those things to be gifts which he could never possibly create – he takes no credit for them. And he treats what he holds to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is TRUE
In contrast to that – the Calvinist must treat what he holds to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
John Calvin
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.”
Here Calvin knows this is FALSE – while also knowing he must treat it *AS-IF* it is TRUE
John Calvin
-quote:
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, AS THOUGH nothing were determined about any part.”
Here Calvin holds determinism is TRUE – while also knowing he must treat it *AS-IF* it is FALSE
The phenomenon of *AS_IF* thinking is also acknowledged by Atheist Determinists
*AS-IF* thinking is a psychological consequence of Determinism
This is why the Calvinist will claim LFW is FALSE – while treating it *AS-IF* it is TRUE
br.d
He created all of it.
What’s wrong with giving him credit for that?
roland
But God did not create your free decision, according Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, your free choice is yours. God did not create it. Why would you give God credit for something He did not do? That’s like paying someone to cut your grass when they never cut it. Or that’s like taking your car to have the oil changed, they never change but you do it yourself at home, and then you turn around and pay the person that never changed your oil. Why would any reasonable person do that? If you find one, let them know that I’m doing oil changes at great prices!😀
roland
But God did not create your free decision
br.d
He created the functions of decision and intelligence as gifts.
It is TRUE he does not determine your decision *FOR* you.
But the basis for your decision would have to be based on intelligence which is a gift.
Without intelligence there is no such thing as a decision.
Since you didn’t create human intelligence – but rather it was given to you as a gift – then to boast about your use of it would be LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.
Roland
, according Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, your free choice is yours.
br.d
In the sense that that choice is UP TO YOU – yes.
And in the sense that you are the DETERMINER of that choice – yes.
Roland
God did not create it.
br.d
You have a point here!
If he does not create the inclination then can you boast that you did?
Look at it – as it pertains to the consequence of Exhaustive Divine Determinism – in which you are not granted the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
In this case – if the THEOS doesn’t create an inclination for either TRUE or for FALSE within your brain – then you can boast that you created that inclination on your own.
I don’t think there is any way a LOGICALLY COHERENT believer can claim to create anything including inclination.
Roland
Why would you give God credit for something He did not do?
br.d
You mean – since he did not determine what your inclination will be – why would you give him credit for that inclination. wouldn’t you take that credit for yourself.
When we talk about credit – we need to acknowledge it can be both positive and negative.
Credit that is negative is called “blame”.
If you are going to credit Calvin’s god for determining every inclination – and some inclinations are sinful – then that credit effectively becomes blame.
The normative stance on this issue is to credit the creator for good gifts he gives and credit humans for sins and evils they commit.
But if you insist on crediting him for every inclination – then be consistent and credit him for all sins and evils – as well as good things. And don’t credit either good or evil to yourself.
br.d
He created the functions of decision and intelligence as gifts.
It is TRUE he does not determine your decision *FOR* you.
roland
I have a question, I’m curious about what you are writing. You have written that salvation is a gift, choice is a gift, now you are saying intelligence is a gift.
Does God give all gifts to each person in equal measure? Since intelligence is a gift, do humans receive this gift like they do the gift of salvation or is it more like the gift of heart, lung, etc.?
roland
I have a question, I’m curious about what you are writing. You have written that salvation is a gift, choice is a gift, now you are saying intelligence is a gift.
Does God give all gifts to each person in equal measure?
br.d
Well that depends on what we mean by equal measure.
For example – take a person who is born blind.
The person doesn’t have eye sight in equal measure to others.
But that person develops alternative senses which non-blind people do not have in equal measure.
It becomes more difficult when we talk about extremely worse cases.
For example the person who is born mentally retarded.
Does that person have something that other people don’t have in equal measure?
I don’t know.
From my perspective I certainly feel I am blessed to be born in the U.S. and not in china – where they would be strapping me down on a table and taking out my heart without anesthesia – to sell it on the black market.
So it would seem to be the case that some people are given the gift of a wonderful life-style while others are given devastating lives to live. So its hard to see equal measure in that.
Roland
Since intelligence is a gift, do humans receive this gift like they do the gift of salvation or is it more like the gift of heart, lung, etc.?
br.d
I think this is a personal question.
Everyone probably sees it a little differently.
But I see all human parts and all human attributes as gifts.
You receive the gift of most of your body parts and our DNA at the moment of conception.
And you are probably not cognitively aware that life is a gift.
Perhaps when you get older you learn to appreciate that.
But the gift of salvation on the other hand is definitely a gift which you are cognitively aware of as a gift because you understand what existence would be like without it.
br.d
I think this is a personal question.
Everyone probably sees it a little differently.
But I see all human parts and all human attributes as gifts.
You receive the gift of most of your body parts and our DNA at the moment of conception.
And you are probably not cognitively aware that life is a gift.
Perhaps when you get older you learn to appreciate that.
roland
Fair enough.
br.d
So you’re arguing for something that you know is not biblical.
And you think I do that???
roland
No I don’t think you’re doing that.
br.d
3) The creature is “MERELY” permitted to be the determiner of which one he chooses
roland
The creature cannot be permitted anything. Remember the definition of libertarian freewill from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
“When an agent exercises free will over her choices and actions, her choices and actions are up to her. But up to her in what sense? As should be clear from our historical survey, two common (and compatible) answers are: (i) up to her in the sense that she is able to choose otherwise, or at minimum that she is able not to choose or act as she does, and (ii) up to her in the sense that she is the source of her action.”
If there is permission that must mean something outside of the person is NOT PERMITTING them to be the determiner. This is like water behind the dam. Unless the water is permitted to pass the dam, the water will not flow down river. Remember, the person is the source of their free choice.
br.d
So you’re arguing for something that you know is not biblical.
And you think I do that???
roland
No I don’t think you’re doing that.
br.d
Ok then – I think we can simply ignore your argument on that point then.
So moving forward:
3) On LFW – the creature is “MERELY” permitted to be the determiner of which one he chooses
roland
The creature cannot be permitted anything. Remember the definition of libertarian freewill from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
“When an agent exercises free will over her choices and actions, her choices and actions are up to her. But up to her in what sense? As should be clear from our historical survey, two common (and compatible) answers are: (i) up to her in the sense that she is able to choose otherwise, or at minimum that she is able not to choose or act as she does, and (ii) up to her in the sense that she is the source of her action.”
br.d
That is actually LOGICALLY consistence with “MERE” permission.
The THEOS “MERELY” permits the agent to…..fill in the rest of that quote here.
Roland
If there is permission that must mean something outside of the person is NOT PERMITTING them to be the determiner.
br.d
What????
Permission and NOT permission are mutually exclusive to each other.
You ether have one or the other.
Its like adding [A]+ with [A]-
When you add them you get no [A] at all
So with LFW you have what Calvin called “MERE” permission.
The THEOS “MERELY” permits the creature to ……xyz
Roland
Unless the water is permitted to pass the dam, the water will not flow down river. Remember, the person is the source of their free choice.
br.d
You seem to be arguing that it is LOGICALLY impossible for a THEOS to “MERELY” permit you to have source-hood. And I’m not connecting those dots
Roland
used to be in your shoes as I used to believe in libertarian freewill. When I understood what is really is, ……..etc
br.d
Roland – this statement serves as a red-flag that you do actually believe in LFW while you think you don’t.
In Exhaustive Divine Determinism – there is no such thing as YOUR brain coming to an understanding.
The process of YOUR brain coming to an understanding would require a degree of AUTONOMY for your brain – that does not exist in your belief system.
The only way YOUR brain could come to an understanding is if YOUR brain were granted LFW to do so..
Here is how it works:
1) Everything that comes to pass is determined by Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world.
2) This includes every PERCEPTION that will come to pass within your brain
3) Which means – you are NOT the determiner of any PERCEPTION which comes to pass within your brain – because every PERCEPTION was already determined – at the foundation of the world – by an external mind
4) Per your statement (i.e. testimony) above – your brain once had the PERCEPTION that LFW exists for humans.
That PERCEPTION was not a product of your brain – it was determined at the foundation of the world – by an external mind.
It was determined to be the PERCEPTION that would exist in your brain by infallible decree.
5) Your brain has no power to counter an infallible decree
So the only way your brain could not have that PERCEPTION is by the THEOS determining a time in your life in which that PERCEPTION would change to a different PERCEPTION.
6) Therefore the reason you PERCEPTION changed is not because YOUR brain came to an understanding – but rather because an external mind CAUSED a different PERCEPTION to come to pass within your brain.
CONCLUSION
The notion that your brain can “came to an understanding” of anything – serves as a denial of your doctrine – because it assumes a degree of autonomy for your brain – that doesn’t exist in your belief system – and also assumes LFW is available to your brain.
br.d
Here is how it works:
1) Everything that comes to pass is determined by Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world.
roland
True, yet, God is not the author of sin (James 1:13) nor does He violate the freewill of man nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away but established (Acts 2:23; Matt: 17:12; Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11; Pro. 16:33).
br.d
3) Which means – you are NOT the determiner of any PERCEPTION which comes to pass within your brain – because every PERCEPTION was already determined – at the foundation of the world – by an external mind
roland
True as well but if you read the verses I quoted above it will show you that even though God works all things after the counsel of His own will, including the perceptions of man, He is not MAKING those perceptions for us. We still experience the perception. The Bible holds two truths together but you would consider them DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS or CONTRADICTIONS. I’m okay with that as you fully convince of your position and I of mine.
br.d
That PERCEPTION was not a product of your brain – it was determined at the foundation of the world – by an external mind.
roland
Yes, it was determined by an external mind to occur, that is I was determined to have that perception myself. It is my own experience. The external mind did not experience it for me. Determining something for somebody does not mean that the person is not experiencing the determination for them. I can determine to take my child to the dentist but I am not going to experience his visit for him. You are conflating two things: God’s determination and human experience of those determinations.
This is the same mistake that all non-calvinists make: conflating God’s decree into everything that happens.
br.d
It was determined to be the PERCEPTION that would exist in your brain by infallible decree.
roland
True but since you are conflating God’s decree or determinations with whatsoever comes to pass, you are going to make the same mistake of believing He experiences our perceptions. Read Acts 4, there God predetermined that men would crucify Jesus but God did not physically put His “hands” on Jesus so that he would be taken to the cross.
br.d
5) Your brain has no power to counter an infallible decree
So the only way your brain could not have that PERCEPTION is by the THEOS determining a time in your life in which that PERCEPTION would change to a different PERCEPTION.
6) Therefore the reason you PERCEPTION changed is not because YOUR brain came to an understanding – but rather because an external mind CAUSED a different PERCEPTION to come to pass within your brain.
roland
I would agree with both of these statements but I did experience an understanding in my real functioning mind. In Calvinism humans ARE NOT robots nor have we been put into a program.
When Peter preached in Acts 2:24 that God “raised” Jesus up, does this mean that God experienced the “raising” up for Jesus or did Jesus really experience being raised up by God?
br.d
CONCLUSION
The notion that your brain can “came to an understanding” of anything – serves as a denial of your doctrine – because it assumes a degree of autonomy for your brain – that doesn’t exist in your belief system – and also assumes LFW is available to your brain.
roland
Your conclusion is erroneous because you conflate the determinations of God with the experiences of humans. There are many examples in Scripture of God determining things for humans yet SCRIPTURE does not deny that the human does not experience their perception.
It does not logically follow that God’s decree or determination means that God experiences His own decree or determination. That is what you are arguing that saying that an EXTERNAL MIND determined my perception. You deny my own experience by your faulty logic.
br.d Here is how it works: 1) Everything that comes to pass is determined by Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world.
Roland: True, yet, God is not the author of sin (James 1:13) nor does He violate the freewill of man nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away but established (Acts 2:23; Matt: 17:12; Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11; Pro. 16:33).
PL: Calvinism/WF – “Bill is taller than Fred, but yet not in such a way that Fred is shorter than Bill” 😀
Pastor Loz
PL: Calvinism/WF – “Bill is taller than Fred, but yet not in such a way that Fred is shorter than Bill” ��
roland
All non-calvinists – “God is freer than humans, but yet not in such a way that humans are in bondage than God.” 😂😂😂
///// roland All non-calvinists – “God is freer than humans, but yet not in such a way that humans are in bondage than God.” ������ /////
Yahweh is freer than the calvinist god, in such a way that He is actually free to give humans LFW
Pastor Loz
Yahweh is freer than the calvinist god, in such a way that He is actually free to give humans LFW
roland
And where is that found in Scripture? Chapter and verse please? Where did God say in His word that He has given us LFW? If it’s not in Scripture it must be MAN-MADE!!! Wait, I thought only Calvinists used MAN-MADE creeds and confessions, you know, those statements that declare God’s truths are JOKES!!!
///// roland And where is that found in Scripture? Chapter and verse please? Where did God say in His word that He has given us LFW? If it’s not in Scripture it must be MAN-MADE!!! /////
Let’s play Roland’s game. Where did God say in His Word that He has given us compatibilistic free will? I’ll wait.
Pastor Loz
Where did God say in His Word that He has given us compatibilistic free will? I’ll wait.
roland
It is true that I cannot provide you a verse that says God gave humans compatibilistic freewill but I can provide examples in Scripture where God is said to predetermine or foreordain an event or events or God is involved in some way and the humans in these examples are still morally responsible for their actions.
Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; Genesis chapters 37-50 the historical account of Joseph and his brothers; Exodus chapters 7-14 the hardening of pharaohs heart by his own actions and God’s actions to harden pharaohs heart.
Isaiah 10:5-12 God sending the king of Assyria to judge a nation to destroy but in verse God still judges the king for his sinful actions of destroying other nations.
John 6:35-37
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will [a]by no means cast out.
Here Jesus is teaching us that we (yes, I believe this applies to all believers not just the apostles as Leighton claims) believers are given to Jesus by God yet it is us who come to Jesus.
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Another example: here “as many as received” are humans receiving Christ but verse 13 says it is not man’s will but God’s will that causes this.
John 5:21
21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
Jesus says “the Son gives life to whom He will” yet further in chapter 5 humans are still responsible for not coming to Jesus.
Last one though there are many more
Acts 16:14
14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Lydia before her heart was opened by God was already a worshipper of God but God OPENED her heart to HEED the things SPOKEN by Paul. The ESV translates heed as “to pay attention.” The text doesn’t say Lydia was a worshipper of God, then God offered her the choice of her heart being opened, and Lydia out of the liberty of her freewill ALLOWED God to open her heart.
Who’s reading their presuppositions into the text? Not Calvinists as I just offered some verses with a plain reading of the text. There is no need to appeal to mystery, no need to jump to other text, no need to read the chapters in reverse as Eric Kemp does in his essay about John 6 being not about US, when he uses John 17 to interpret the meaning John 6! That’s silly to believe that in order to understand John 6 we need to read John 17. When the recipients of John’s Gospel read John 6 they didn’t have any understand of the text until they read John 17? That’s what Eric Kemp is arguing, Leighton allowed him to post the essay on this site, and probably most of Leighton’s followers take Eric’s interpretation as canon.
I didn’t interpret the text, they don’t need to INTERPRETED just read them and take in what the text is saying.
///// Roland John 1:12-13 12 as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Another example: here “as many as received” are humans receiving Christ but verse 13 says it is not man’s will but God’s will that causes this. /////
Amusing that you cite this verse, since it clearly shows that the chronological ordo salutis is believing first, becoming children of God second, thus disproving that regeneration precedes faith. And there are many other verses that do so. Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13 being just two examples.
John 20:31 being another very good example: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
If you understood Greek, you would know that the word for “man” in v13 is “Andros”, a word that specifically means “husband”. It is referring to the human father, in contrast to the heavenly father. Saying that it is God, the heavenly father, who decides that those who believe will be born again.
Pastor Loz
Amusing that you cite this verse, since it clearly shows that the chronological ordo salutis is believing first, becoming children of God second, thus disproving that regeneration precedes faith.
roland
You are saying that the best reading of John 1:12-13 is chronological yet you said the ordo salutis is believing first, becoming children of God second.. What about receiving? Do we receive Christ first, then believe second, then become children of God third?
Yes, regeneration proceeds faith. Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Even when were DEAD (I know, I’ve read alternate interpretations that this doesn’t mean dead as in unable to make a choice for God but I believe here it means dead as in spiritually dead) God made us alive together with Christ, raised us up together and made us…
For a fuller ordo salutis Romans 8 provides this. I would argue that this is a better chronological understanding of salvation for the elect as it goes back before the elect were even born
Romans 8:30
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
This is the perfect chronological ordo salutis: predestined as in God chose us or predestined the elect in eternity past, He called us as in when the elect hear the Gospel call to repentance and belief we respond, He justifies us as in imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, and finally, He glorified us as in we will be glorified with Christ for eternity.
/////Roland Yes, regeneration proceeds faith. Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus ////
I see you ignored John 20:31, Eph 1:13, John 5:40, Gal 3:2, all of which show without any ambiguity that faith precedes generation.
///// Roland This is the perfect chronological ordo salutis: predestined as in God chose us or predestined the elect in eternity past, He called us as in when the elect hear the Gospel call to repentance and belief we respond, He justifies us as in imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, and finally, He glorified us as in we will be glorified with Christ for eternity./////
As already explained to you, according to Eph 1:4, God chose the corporate category of thos IN CHRIST. We come to be in Christ by faith, at the moment when we believe, John 1:13, and not a moment before. As also explained to you, this is why in Romans 16 Paul mentions two people who were in Christ BEFORE him. He predestines those IN CHRIST to be sanctified, glorified, adopted, holy and blameless, conformed to Christ’s image.
Pastor Loz
As already explained to you, according to Eph 1:4, God chose the corporate category of thos IN CHRIST.
roland
I read this argument before, I used to believe it, taught it, preached it, and defended it. The theory of the corporate election of believers.
However, I ran into a problem. If God elects a “body” of believers, my question to you is: Does a “body” of believers contain individuals? Or is it a “body” of faceless people? If the “body” is know, shouldn’t’ the individuals within that “body” be known as well?
To me, it does not logically follow that you can have a “body” of people without individuals in it. Unless of course you are going to make the argument that a “body” of people can be filled with “hypothetical” individuals.
A few more questions that caused me to abandon the corporate view. Revelation 7:9-17
Do you believe Revelation 7:9-17 is future or past?
If future, did John see, when he looked, a great multitude of people from all tribes, nations, peoples, and tongues, a multitude of FACELESS persons or HYPOTHETICAL persons or did the great multitude of people have faces of INDIVIDUALS that John may one day recognize in glory?
According to corporate theory, John could not have seen any individuals just a multitude of faceless or hypothetical persons.
Pastor Loz As already explained to you, according to Eph 1:4, God chose the corporate category of those IN CHRIST.
////roland: If God elects a “body” of believers, my question to you is: Does a “body” of believers contain individuals? Or is it a “body” of faceless people? If the “body” is know, shouldn’t’ the individuals within that “body” be known as well? To me, it does not logically follow that you can have a “body” of people without individuals in it. Unless of course you are going to make the argument that a “body” of people can be filled with “hypothetical” individuals. /////
And I have come across this Calvinist objection many times. It’s irrelevant. God chose a corporate category. Individuals join that group at the point in time when they believe. God knows every individual that will join the group. So they are known, real individuals, not hypothetical individuals.
///// roland A few more questions that caused me to abandon the corporate view. Revelation 7:9-17. Do you believe Revelation 7:9-17 is future or past? If future, did John see, when he looked, a great multitude of people from all tribes, nations, peoples, and tongues, a multitude of FACELESS persons or HYPOTHETICAL persons or did the great multitude of people have faces of INDIVIDUALS that John may one day recognize in glory? According to corporate theory, John could not have seen any individuals just a multitude of faceless or hypothetical persons.////
Again, irrelevant, for the exact same reason as given above. Furthermore, Revelation 7 takes place after the Great White Throne judgment, since that is when heaven will be populated. The group will be fully populated with every individual that has joined it.
roland
I read this argument before, I used to believe it, taught it, preached it, and defended it. The theory of the corporate election of believers.
br.d
Thus it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS:
1) It came to pass that this was the PERCEPTION in your brain for 8 years
2) A a FALSE PERCEPTION existed in your mind for 8 years
3) According to the doctrine – the only way that FALSE PERCEPTION could come to pass in your brain was by infallible decree
4) An infallible decree cannot be broken and you cannot escape it.
5) Therefore your brain was NOT FREE to discern any FALSE PERCEPTION while the infallibly decree is in effect
6) The only way your brain could PERCEIVE it as a FALSE PERCEPTION is the infallible decree dictated that
7) Therefore the infallible decree dictated that at a point in time your PERCEPTION would change to a different PERCEPTION.
And none of that process was AUTONOMOUS because no degree of mental AUTONOMY is granted your brain.
CONCLUSION
1) It was infallibly decreed that for 8 years your brain would PERCEIVE – FALSE PERCEPTIONS as TRUE
2) It was infallibly decreed that at some specific point in time – certain PERCEPTIONS in your brain would change to different PERCEPTIONS.
The critical thing to note here is that – on your doctrine – your brain is NOT PERMITTED to discern FALSE PERCEPTIONS.
QUESTION
What percentage of your CURRENT PERCEPTIONS about scripture are FALSE?
ANSWER:
You have no way of knowing – because on your doctrine – the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE is not granted to your brain.
Congratulations!
You have embraced a doctrine that is self-defeating! :-]
br.d
ANSWER:
You have no way of knowing – because on your doctrine – the epistemic function of determining TRUE from FALSE is not granted to your brain.
roland
We have gone over this before. The Bible teaches us that God determined whatsoever comes to pass yet humans make real choices, experience their choices, and can know that they made their choice. We are not robots. But that’s the conclusion you come to when you build A CALVINISTIC STRAW MAN.
///// roland We have gone over this before. The Bible teaches us that God determined whatsoever comes to pass yet humans make real choices, experience their choices, and can know that they made their choice. ////
Tell us what “real choice” unregenerate men make between sinning and repenting.
Pastor Loz
Tell us what “real choice” unregenerate men make between sinning and repenting.
roland
As far as unregenerate men making choices between sinning and repenting they cannot unless God intervenes. Romans 8 says those that are in the flesh CANNOT please God. Not sinning and repenting are things that please God, therefore, the man in the flesh, that is the unregenerate man, cannot do this.
Their choice is real in that they experience their choice, they reason to come to their choice, they perceive their choice, they know their choice. That’s how it is real.
Cool story. So the only way it is NOT real is that the choice is made FOR them by God’s infallible decree, using their unchosen, inherited sinful nature.
roland
As far as unregenerate men making choices between sinning and repenting they cannot unless God intervenes
br.d
“unless god intervenes”
Intervenes in what….human AUTONOMY?????
What a JOKE!!!
Calvinism is a continual stream of DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
In Calvinism – whatever state man is in at time [X] is 100% determined by infallible decree
And Calvin’s god is not going to “intervene” in his infallible decree – without being a house divided against himself.
So there no such thing as Calvin’s god “intervening” in anything having to do with man.
Man has no AUTONOMY to “intervene”
The very AUTONOMY the Calvinist insists doesn’t exist – is the very AUTONOMY he automatically assumes.
Calvinist:
I know the world is flat because I’ve measured is diameter! ;-D
roland
We have gone over this before. The Bible teaches us that God determined whatsoever comes to pass yet humans make “REAL” choices,
br.d
Yes we have and my statement is still TRUE
What you call “REAL” is simply nothing more than a PERCEPTION
For 8 years – what you had were FALSE PERCEPTIONS which were infallibly decreed to exist for 8 years.
And those FALSE PERCEPTIONS were “REAL” to you.
But they were still FALSE
And your brain was NOT PERMITTED to know they were FALSE
Roland
experience their choices, and can know that they made their choice.
br.d
Yes you have PERCEPTIONS which you “experience”
But you do not have the function of choice – for the reasons I’ve explained to you.
If you PERCEIVE your self as the DETERMINER of any INCLINATION that comes to pass within your brain – then you are “experiencing” one more infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION.
Roland
We are not robots.
br.d
Here you are hiding behind slippery language again!!
No one says Calvinists are machines made out of plastic and metal gears.
But according to the doctrine – every impulse that comes to pass within your brain – WAS (past tense) solely and exclusively determined by an external mind.
And every HONEST adult knows that model of FUNCTIONALITY is “robot-IC”
And that is why we are discussing the FUNCTIONALITY of your brain.
Again – the AUTONOMY you insist the bible doesn’t teach – is the very AUTONOMY you assume for yourself.
br.d
And every HONEST adult knows that model of FUNCTIONALITY is “robot-IC”
roland
Ok GOT IT. Here’s the conclusion: I’m not honest as I believe I make real choices with my brain because the choices are not real, I’m just a robot. Got it!
roland
Ok GOT IT. Here’s the conclusion: I’m not honest as I believe I make real choices with my brain because the choices are not real, I’m just a robot. Got it!
br.d
Again – I think you are smarter than that.
At least I hope so!!
You should be smart enough to distinguish between “robot” and “robot-IC:
If that is not the case – then so be it – I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
But if you are smarter than that – then what we have are simply maneuvers designed to evade simple facts and rational thinking
Roland
Please give me an example of a choice you PERCEIVED yourself as the determiner of today
br.d
Please give me an example of a choice you PERCEIVED yourself as the determiner of today
roland
You don’t believe that I can perceive myself, so how can I give you an answer? Why would you ask me about perceptions that you believe I don’t have? That’s like challenging a paraplegic to a foot race.
br.d
Please give me an example of a choice you PERCEIVED yourself as the determiner of today
roland
You don’t believe that I can perceive myself, so how can I give you an answer?
br.d
AH! That’s a FALSE statement – so I suspect you’re trying to evade
We both acknowledge that you have “Experiences” and you have “Perceptions”
So you must have had at least one “Experience” today in which you “Perceived” yourself as the Determiner of a choice
NO??????
br.d
We both acknowledge that you have “Experiences” and you have “Perceptions”
roland
You do! You wrote that my PERCEPTIONS are the product of an EXTERNAL MIND that was PREDETERMINED before I even ever had a perceptions. Are my perceptions true or false?
br.d
Please give me an example of a choice you PERCEIVED yourself as the determiner of today
roland
I am not the ultimate determiner of my choices, God is, but I do determine things. I really make choices everyday even though they have been decreed by God.
br.d
AH! That’s a FALSE statement – so I suspect you’re trying to evade
roland
You are arguing that humans are ROBOTS, when I wrote that you don’t believe I can perceive, I made a false statement?
br.d
So you must have had at least one “Experience” today in which you “Perceived” yourself as the Determiner of a choice
NO??????
roland
Yes!!!! I have many experiences everyday where I am the determiner of my choice but not the ultimate determiner because God has decreed that I would make that choice.
Here’s an example of God working over and against the freewill of Pharaoh and the Egyptians. I appeal to the Bible because the Bible is my authority. And here we have an example of God exercising His sovereignty over Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Under you system of libertarian freewill God CANNOT do this, He is not PERMITTED to stretch out His hand so that Pharaoh will let Israel go. Also, God is not PERMITTED to give favor of Israel in the sight of the Egyptians so that Israel will not go empty handed.
Another result of libertarian freewill is that it denies God’s foreknowledge. In verse 19 God says He is sure that Egypt will not let Israel you go. Under a system of libertarian freewill God CANNOT know this because Pharaoh’s decision is free. Either God really knows what Pharaoh will do or He doesn’t know what Pharaoh will do because of his libertarian free choice.
You can’t have it both ways: you can’t be DOUBLE-MINDED! God cannot know Pharaoh’s choice if it is a libertarian free choice because that would make Pharaoh’s choice foreknown and God’s foreknowledge would bind pharaohs choice or again, another non-biblical result, God’s foreknowledge CAN be wrong.
Exodus 3:19-22
19 But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand. 20 So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in its midst; and after that he will let you go. 21 And I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and it shall be, when you go, that you shall not go empty-handed. 22 But every woman shall ask of her neighbor, namely, of her who dwells near her house, articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing; and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians.”
br.d
So you must have had at least one “Experience” today in which you “Perceived” yourself as the Determiner of a choice
NO??????
roland
Yes!!!!
br.d
Ok
Give me an example then
Or can you???
roland
Here’s an example of God working over and against the freewill …..
br.d
NO!
I specifically asked for an example of where YOU experienced a PERCEPTION of yourself making a choice
Don’t have one????
br.d
Ok
Give me an example then
Or can you???
roland
Ok, here are my experiences that I have perceived so far today: I woke up (according to libertarian freewill this waking up was a free choice, nothing caused me to wake up like my body getting a good night’s rest and causing me come to out of my sleep, it’s Saturday morning no alarm!), I walked to restroom (I’ve been holding it all night, sorry), I flushed the toilet something my parents taught (hmm, I wonder how much effect that has on my free choices?), washed my hands another lesson from parents, walked to the kitchen, made several decisions that resulted in making coffee, read my Bible, opened my computer, checked my emails, answered some emails, etc.
These are all MY EXPERIENCES that I PERCEIVED as real. I hope those are enough examples!
roland
These are all MY EXPERIENCES that I PERCEIVED as real. I hope those are enough examples!
br.d
Evading the question for the 2nd time!
I wonder why?????
No!
I asked for an example of an EXPERIENCE where you PERCEIVED yourself as the determiner of a choice.
Don’t have one?????
Roland
Here’s an example of God working over and against the freewill of Pharaoh….
br.d
Here it is again! More human AUTONOMY!!!
“working over against the freewill of Pharaoh” LOGICALLY equates to will of Pharaoh as AUTONOMOUS from being 100% determined by Calvin’s god.
And that is DOUBLE-SPEAK!!!
You make statements which are IMPLICIT denials of your own belief system.
In Calvinism Pharaoh’s will is 100% determined by Calvin’s god.
Calvin’s god would therefore be working against his own decrees – if he were working over against Pharaoh’s will
And yet – when I ask you if your will is FREE from being 100% determined by Calvin’s god – you say NO.
What we have here is either DOUBLE-SPEAK or it is dishonesty.
Take your pick.
br.d
Here it is again! More human AUTONOMY!!!
“working over against the freewill of Pharaoh” LOGICALLY equates to will of Pharaoh as AUTONOMOUS from being 100% determined by Calvin’s god.
roland
I’ve communicated this to you before, I’ll repeat my statement. Just because something LOGICALLY follows does not mean that it is not BIBLICAL. Logic is not the measure of Biblical truth, the Bible is itself the measure of truth. We will continually run into this issue because we are operating from different presuppositions, your’s is logic, mine is the Bible.
If you believe in the Trinity, then how does it logically follow that God is one being yet three persons. If each person is God, then that logically follows that there are three Gods. And if there are three Gods, the claim of Christianity that it is a monotheistic religion is a false claim.
roland
I’ve communicated this to you before, I’ll repeat my statement. Just because something LOGICALLY follows does not mean that it is not BIBLICAL.
br.d
The bible does not contradict itself
But YOUR INTERPRETATION does! :-]
Unless – once again – you want to argue that a human interpretation is CANON
Roland
Logic is not the measure of Biblical truth, the Bible is itself the measure of truth.
br.d
That statement is utterly self-defeating
Truth is not self-contradicting
But MAGICAL thinking is! :-]
Roland
If you believe in the Trinity, then how does it logically follow that God is one being yet three persons. If each person is God, then that logically follows that there are three Gods. And if there are three Gods, the claim of Christianity that it is a monotheistic religion is a false claim.
br.d
I can’t believe you could lack such basic knowledge of historic Christianity!
The Trinity was long ago resolved to NOT be a contraindication..
But your INTERPRETATIONS of scripture are! :-]
Yep, Roland needs to catch up. The trinity is no more a contradiction than ice, water and steam are all H2O and humans are a trichotomy of spirit, soul and body.
It’s so convenient to say God and His Word are not logical / illogical. It’s just as convenient as inventing non-existing “mysteries” to try and reconcile irreconcilable contradictions. But God is the most logical being there is. He is the source of all true logic. He does not contradict Himself and neither does His Word.
br.d
I can’t believe you could lack such basic knowledge of historic Christianity!
The Trinity was long ago resolved to NOT be a contraindication..
roland
Really? When did the church resolve that the Trinity is NOT a contradiction?
How does it logically follow that the Trinity is not a contradiction? Can you show me a syllogism that displays the truth that there can be one God who is one being with three persons yet not be three Gods? If all three persons are God, then it logically follows that there are three God?
I would love to read a syllogism that shows this. Because if the Trinity is not logical then it can’t be true. And if you believe in the Trinity, you worship the Triune God, that would mean you are worshipping a false god.
Or are you willing to admit that a doctrine like the Trinity, is true, even though it does not logically follow that there can be one God with three persons, thus, meaning that there are three Gods?
roland
Really? When did the church resolve that the Trinity is NOT a contradiction?
br.d
R.C. Sproul
-quote
The Trinity Is Not a Contradiction! The classical formula of the Trinity is that God is one in one thing (one in A, essence) and three in a different thing (three in B, persona). The church fathers were careful not to formulate the nature of God in contradictory terms.
(Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt against Reason)
Guess what!
You are the one misrepresenting a prominent Calvinist!
Too funny!!! 😀
br.d
Guess what!
You are the one misrepresenting a prominent Calvinist!
Too funny!!! ��
roland
Guess what!!!? When did I ever say that I didn’t believe in the Trinity? I do as a Calvinist I am in agreement with RC Sproul.
I was challenging you to prove the logic of the Trinity as you are the one who is always making logical arguments.
Are you in agreement with RC Sproul? How can you be in agreement with a DOUBLE-MINDED Calvinists?!!!!!!
br.d
Guess what!
You are the one misrepresenting a prominent Calvinist!
Too funny!!! 😀
roland
Guess what!!!? When did I ever say that I didn’t believe in the Trinity?
br.d
OHHH!!!!
Your not going to get away with that!!
Your claim had nothing to do with your belief in the Trinity
Your claim was that the Trinity is a contradiction.
How much dishonesty is justified in Calvinism?
You know the answer to that BR D…. Ask Ch dishonesty as calvi-god has irresistibly decreed for his maximal glory!
My experience with Calvinist – is they predominantly assume to be AUTO-MAGICALLY right in everything
And everyone who disagrees with them is AUTO-MAGICALLY wrong.
When it comes to LOGIC – they will claim to have some NEBULOUS superior truth which under a spot-light always shows itself to be DOUBLE-SPEAK.
And when it comes to honesty – its typical for the Calvinist to constantly ride on the gray-edge – using duplicitous language designed to paint FALSE PICTURES – yet without being caught in abject lies.
But when they are painted into a corner they will resort to dishonesty without blinking.
Sometimes it is simplify a SLITHERING language which wraps itself in false piety
The trinity is no more a contradiction that ice, water and steam, or the trichotomy of man. Unlike your irreconcilable Calvinist contradictions.
///// Roland wrote: “That’s like you trying to prove God’s sovereignty when you don’t believe in it.”
Where has Br D or any other non-calvinist on this thread stated, suggested or implied that they don’t believe in God’s sovereignty? We have a higher view of God’s sovereignty than you do, because in your philosophical theory, God is NOT SUFFICIENTLY SOVEREIGN to be “allowed” to give humans LFW.
///// Roland wrote: “Why would I prove something that I don’t believe in? That’s like you trying to prove God’s sovereignty when you don’t believe in it.”
Where has any non-calvinist in this thread stated, suggested or implied that we don’t believe in God’s sovereignty? We hold a higher view of God’s sovereignty than you do, because in your philosophical theory, God is NOT SUFFICIENTLY SOVEREIGN to be “allowed” to give humans LFW.
Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY OMNISCIENT to know things that He has not decreed.
Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY HOLY to offer choices, warn against wrong choices, rebuke wrong choices or lament wrong choices with any degree of integrity, or to punish wrong choices with any degree of justice.
Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY LOVING to be able to love all of humanity enough to send Jesus to die for all, desire salvation for all, genuinely offer salvation to all and enable all to receive it.
Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY GLORIOUS without needing man to sin so He can “show the full range of His glory” through wrathl
What a pitiful, multiply insufficient god you worship. Only a depraved mind could come up with such a version of God.
Pastor Loz
We hold a higher view of God’s sovereignty than you do, because in your philosophical theory, God is NOT SUFFICIENTLY SOVEREIGN to be “allowed” to give humans LFW.
roland
I don’t believe that God “allowed” humans to have or He gave humans LFW because there is no Scripture that teaches God did this. NONE. It is an assumption that is from outside of divine revelation and brought into Scripture by those who hold it.
Pastor Loz
Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY OMNISCIENT to know things that He has not decreed.
roland
How does God know the future? Does He know it because He sees into the future? Or does He know it because He decreed whatsoever comes to pass?
If you believe He sees into the future then the argument results in God lacking knowledge of future of events. He knows it by learning what happens before it happens.
In God’s decree He knows the future because He is the source of all events. He is the first cause of all causes. If there are any causes without Him, then that means there are events outside of Himself.
Pastor Loz
Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY LOVING to be able to love all of humanity enough to send Jesus to die for all, desire salvation for all, genuinely offer salvation to all and enable all to receive it.
roland
God hates all evildoers.
Psalm 5:5
5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
Pastor Loz
What a pitiful, multiply insufficient god you worship. Only a depraved mind could come up with such a version of God.
roland
I worship the true God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. I don’t need to make God into an idol that placates the desires of unrepentant sinners. The non-calvinist God is the golden calf not made up of gold but of non-biblical ideas, philosophies, logic, etc.
roland
The non-calvinist God is the golden calf not made up of gold but of non-biblical ideas, philosophies, logic, etc
br.d
The golden calf which Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVED (i.e. AUTHORED) at the foundation of the world and decreed to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within the non-Calvinist’s brain – which had absolutly no say in the matter
Because – if Calvin’s god doesn’t AUTHOR and DECREE the golden-calf – then he can’t foreknow it! :-]
br.d
Because – if Calvin’s god doesn’t AUTHOR and DECREE the golden-calf – then he can’t foreknow it! :-]
roland
Isaiah 46:10-11 take note of verse 11: I HAVE SPOKEN IT, I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO PASS; I HAVE PURPOSE IT, I WILL ALSO DO IT.
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
This is God speaking, not John Calvin. I don’t need John Calvin to believe that God has spoken, will bring it to pass, purpose, and will also do it. Unless of course man’s LFW gets in the way.
br.d
Because – if Calvin’s god doesn’t AUTHOR and DECREE the golden-calf – then he can’t foreknow it! :-]
roland
This is God speaking
br.d
Just what is spoken – without you INTERPRETING it????
Jesus asked the lawyer who tempted him two questions
1) What does the scripture say
2) Ho do you read it.
The lawyer answered Jesus’ first question and then conveniently evaded the second one.
Did you know – you follow the same pattern?? :-]
roland
I don’t need John Calvin to believe that God has spoken, will bring it to pass, purpose, and will also do it.
br.d
Which is your way of saying – you are agreeing my my statement above:
If Calvin’s god doesn’t AUTHOR/DECREE the golden-calf (and every other sin and evil that comes to pass ) then he can’t foreknow it!
Thanks for acknowledging that! :-]
roland
Unless of course man’s LFW gets in the way.
br.d
“Gets in the way”????
How is it LOGICALLY possible for anything to “get in the way” of that which supernaturally comes to pass infallibly and irresistibly?
The notion of fallible man “getting in the way” of an infallible decree is another good example of DOUBLE-SPEAK :-]
br.d
Just what is spoken – without you INTERPRETING it????
roland
Does every Scripture require or necessitate an interpretation?
It sounds like you believe that without interpretation we cannot understand Scripture. Is that what you believe?
You cited Luke 10:26 and here Jesus’ point is NOT THAT EVERY SCRIPTURE REQUIRES AN INTERPRETATION. Jesus’ point is found in verse 29 and verse 37. Jesus is teaching the lawyer the truth that it is not the READING of the law that matters but the DOING of the law that matters. Here, the DOING is loving your neighbor. The reason why Jesus uses a Samaritan is teach the lawyer the even a Samaritan, whom the Jews hated, could fulfill the law of loving your neighbor as yourself.
Read this, look at it in its context if you desire but here’s a wonderful truth. Jesus spoke to his audience in parables as they were able to hear it. Guess what we do not read about? AN INTERPRETATION OF JESUS’S PARABLES. It seems as if you are arguing that every Scripture requires an interpretation, well once again, Jesus fails Br.d’s logic test as Jesus did in Mark 9:24, where Jesus fails to recognize the man’s BELIEF and UNBELIEF, Jesus fails to correct the man’s contradiction. According to YOUR logic test, Jesus would fail.
Mark 4:33
33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it.
br.d
Just what is spoken – without you INTERPRETING it????
Jesus asked the lawyer 2 questions
1) What does the scripture say
2) How do you read it
The lawyer answered Jesus’ 1st question – and conveniently evaded the second one
Did you know – you follow the same pattern?? :-]
roland
Does every Scripture require or necessitate an interpretation?
br.d
Not you – because you consistently follow the pattern of the lawyer who evaded Jesus 2nd question – how do you read it
For those who respect Jesus and scripture – the answer is absolutely yes! :
br.d
Which is your way of saying – you are agreeing my my statement above:
If Calvin’s god doesn’t AUTHOR/DECREE the golden-calf (and every other sin and evil that comes to pass ) then he can’t foreknow it!
Thanks for acknowledging that! :-]
roland
I never wrote that God CANNOT foreknow something because He decreed it. I wrote that God knows the future BECAUSE He decreed it. There’s a big difference there my friend.
In Reformed theology the reasons God CANNOT do something is because it would be contrary to His nature, such as God cannot lie, as revealed in Scripture or the Scripture plainly reveals that it is not His will.
roland
I never wrote that God CANNOT foreknow something because He decreed it.
br.d
You have it wrong – he CANNOT foreknow something if he has not decreed it
roland
I wrote that God knows the future BECAUSE He decreed it. There’s a big difference there my friend.
br.d
So CAN he foreknow the future without decreeing it?
Let your communication be YEA or NAY for anything else comes of evil
br.d
So CAN he foreknow the future without decreeing it?
Let your communication be YEA or NAY for anything else comes of evil
roland
No, not as revealed in Scripture. Everything that is has been decreed by God. There is a future BECAUSE He decreed it. There would be no future if God had not decreed it. Just as there would be no earth if God had not created it.
I’m not a Jesuit, I’m not a Molinist. I’m an evangelical reformed Christian.
br.d
So CAN he foreknow the future without decreeing it?
Let your communication be YEA or NAY for anything else comes of evil
roland
No……..etc
br.d
BINGO!
Calvin’s god has to FIRST CONCEIVE every sin and evil and then DECREE ever sin and every evil in order to foreknow it.
It makes perfect sense!
If someone else is the AUTHOR of evil – then the process of Calvin’s god foreknowing it would be to LEARN it – just as you said.
And this is why Calvin has no problem declaring his god as the author of evil.
But I bump into many Calvinists who choke on that part of Calvin’s camel! :-]
//// roland Isaiah 46:10-11 take note of verse 11: I HAVE SPOKEN IT, I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO PASS; I HAVE PURPOSE IT, I WILL ALSO DO IT. 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
This is God speaking, not John Calvin. I don’t need John Calvin to believe that God has spoken, will bring it to pass, purpose, and will also do it. Unless of course man’s LFW gets in the way. /////
No biblical non-calvinist denies this verse. It says that God will do everything that He has said He will do. From beginning to end. And your point is????? Please don’t try to make this verse mean everything that happens is caused by God, because it clearly doesn’t. Any more than the verses that say God will do all He pleases mean that He causes everything that happens.
That is like saying because all bananas are fruit, all fruit are bananas.
Pastor Loz
That is like saying because all bananas are fruit, all fruit are bananas.
br.d
Which is a categorical error in LOGIC.
Calvinists have what social psychologists call – a “CLOSED” system of logic.
Jesus says “Let your YEA be YEA and your NAY be NAY for anything else comes of evil
But for the Calvinist – that is human logic
The Calvinist has a “truth” which supersedes human logic.
A SUPER Christian who follows a SUPER Apostle who is the father of a SUPER theology. :-]
Pastor Loz: We hold a higher view of God’s sovereignty than you do, because in your philosophical theory, God is NOT SUFFICIENTLY SOVEREIGN to be “allowed” to give humans LFW.
///// roland I don’t believe that God “allowed” humans to have or He gave humans LFW because there is no Scripture that teaches God did this. NONE. It is an assumption that is from outside of divine revelation and brought into Scripture by those who hold it./////
You have been corrected on this so many times it’s not even funny. Read through your Bible, not just the cherry-picked, out of context, misinterpreted “proof” texts of your philosophers. Every time that God presents a choice to men, warns them of the consequences of making the wrong choice, rebukes them for making the wrong choice, disciplines them for making the wrong choice, laments them making the wrong choice, He is being GENUINE. He is speaking with INTEGRITY. He is not simply offering the ILLUSION of a choice, as your god does in Calvinism. So for you to claim that LFW is not in Scripture is flat out dishonest.
Pastor Loz: Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY OMNISCIENT to know things that He has not decreed.
///// roland: How does God know the future? Does He know it because He sees into the future? Or does He know it because He decreed whatsoever comes to pass? If you believe He sees into the future then the argument results in God lacking knowledge of future of events. He knows it by learning what happens before it happens.
In God’s decree He knows the future because He is the source of all events. He is the first cause of all causes. If there are any causes without Him, then that means there are events outside of Himself. ////
Again you have been corrected on this, but you refuse to acknowledge it. God does not “see into the future”, because He is OMNITEMPORAL. He is simultaneously present at all points in time, that human beings experience in a linear sequence. He does not have to look into the future, He is ALREADY IN the future. He does not learn, because He has ALWAYS KNOWN. If you deny this, you deny the omni-temporality of God and you reduce Him to the human status of moving through time. God knows the things He has decreed to come to pass, AND He knows the things that come to pass, which He has not decreed. God is NOT DEPENDENT upon decreeing a thing, in order for Him to know that it will happen. Thus God ALSO knows things which WOULD have happened, which people WOULD have done, if circumstances had been different. In your theory, since God did not decree those things to happen, He COULD NOT KNOW that they would have happened.
In your mythology, God CAUSES sin and by your logic THERE IS NO SIN OUTSIDE GOD. In complete contradiction of James 1:13. Thus you have an unholy god. You blaspheme the holiness of God.
Pastor LozI
In your theory, since God did not decree those things to happen, He COULD NOT KNOW that they would have happened.
roland
Your statement is a theological mess. You really don’t understand what Calvinists believe about God’s omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
The reason why I reject the idea of middle knowledge is that those events never come to pass. These are HYPOTHETICALS. I do believe that God could know hypotheticals but I reject that idea because the Bible never presents us with events that are hypotheticals.
I would point out as well that you referred to the circumstances being the cause of choices. These creates a lot of problems for what the Bible reveals about God and His interaction with creation.
Under a middle theory of knowledge one could argue that Jesus could have failed to die on the cross because the circumstances could have been different so that the Pharisees would not have crucified Jesus or Pontius Pilate under different circumstances allowed Jesus to go free or Judas would not have betrayed Jesus under different circumstances. That’s silly to speculate in such manner that is contrary to the Bible.
It is a contradiction to say that human free choices are determined by the circumstances in which the choices had made, that’s not a free choice. No body can make an argument for libertarian freewill.
/// roland Your statement is a theological mess. You really don’t understand what Calvinists believe about God’s omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. The reason why I reject the idea of middle knowledge is that those events never come to pass. These are HYPOTHETICALS. I do believe that God could know hypotheticals but I reject that idea because the Bible never presents us with events that are hypotheticals. ///
Either you don’t understand what a hypothetical is, or there are pages missing from your bible.
Roland: “the Bible never presents us with events that are hypotheticals”
Jesus: Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For IF the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they WOULD HAVE have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
And you call my statement a “theological mess”? More irony.
Pastor Loz
Jesus: Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For IF the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they WOULD HAVE have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
roland
EXACTLY: IF but the miracles were never performed, it is just a hypothetical.
Are you saying that one event in the Bible means ALL events or choices in the Bible present a hypothetical or another outcome?
roland
EXACTLY: IF but the miracles were never performed, it is just a hypothetical.
br..d
Thus an example of a hypothetical in scripture! :-]
roland
Are you saying that one event in the Bible means ALL events or choices in the Bible present a hypothetical or another outcome?
br.d
Conflating the term SOME with the term ALL is a Calvinist practice.
For example with their interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4
But in LOGIC the term SOME does not mean ALL
br.d
But in LOGIC the term SOME does not mean ALL
roland
This is the same argument that Leighton Flowers makes: Just because God decreed SOME things does not mean He decreed ALL things.
/// roland This is the same argument that Leighton Flowers makes: Just because God decreed SOME things does not mean He decreed ALL things. ///
And he is correct. And your point is what? It’s only necessary to show that Jesus/God knew how ONE hypothetical situation would have turned out, with absolute certainty, to demonstrate that God has that ability as part His omniscience. Unless you want us to believe He was just a “good guesser” or He received an email from one of the Sidonians of that era, telling Him they would have repented.
Pastor Loz
And he is correct. And your point is what?
roland
My point was made in my last post. Non-calvinist disagree with us that just because God decreed some things doesn’t mean He decreed all things yet when it comes to middle knowledge, non-calvinist are saying BECAUSE there are some hypothetical situations in Scripture MEANS that all situations are hypothetical. This is the non-calvinist argument. The double standard is that non-calvinists believe it is okay for them to reason from SOME choices being hypothetical to ALL choices being hypothetical.
Pastor Loz
to demonstrate that God has that ability as part His omniscience.
roland
I’ll repeat: I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS. I AGREE WITH YOU that God has the ability to know hypotheticals. But the problem I have with this is that God has not decreed hypotheticals to come to pass, so I don’t see any point in discussing hypotheticals. To discuss what could have happened leads to mere speculation FROM US HUMANS because we lack the divine knowledge that Jesus has. Our speculation could be endless, we could speculate on and on forever and never come to a conclusion on anything because of speculations.
My youngest does this all the time, he loves “what if” questions. What if this or what if that, it is just his endless imagination thinking things up, they don’t help at all with reality. I spent $1200 on car maintenance last week. I told him how much I spent, he asked why, I told why I had to spend that much money because I need a car to get around to get to work, etc. He asked several what if questions. “What if the brakes never got old? What if the tires never turned bad? What if you didn’t need a car to go to work?” He’s speculated about reality and it doesn’t help, it is funny, because he think of so many “what if” situations but it doesn’t help reality.
Pastor Loz
Unless you want us to believe He was just a “good guesser” or He received an email from one of the Sidonians of that era, telling Him they would have repented.
roland
No.
/// roland I AGREE WITH YOU that God has the ability to know hypotheticals. But the problem I have with this is that God has not decreed hypotheticals to come to pass, so I don’t see any point in discussing hypotheticals ////
The point of discussing God’s knowledge of hypotheticals is that it disproves Calvin’s claim that God only knows things because He has decreed them. Who is the true calvinist, you or Calvin?
Roland
non-calvinist are saying BECAUSE there are some hypothetical situations in Scripture MEANS that all situations are hypothetical.
br.d
Ok lets apply your standard for misrepresentation here once more
Please provide a quote from a prominent non-Calvinist who states ” there are some hypothetical situations in Scripture MEANS that all situations are hypothetical”
But of course you can’t because no one would be silly enough to make such a statement
Which once again – shows your standard for misrepresentation is bogus! :-]
/// Roland: non-calvinist are saying BECAUSE there are some hypothetical situations in Scripture MEANS that all situations are hypothetical. ///
Where? Show me where someone has said that. Quote them.
Pastor Loz
Where? Show me where someone has said that. Quote them.
roland
Ok, so I’m not going to find those exact words but hypotheticals are the basis or foundation of middle knowledge. Here are some quotes from the master himself, the Notorious W.L.C.
“Suppose that God has decided to create you in a set of circumstances because He knew that in those circumstances you would make an undetermined choice to do A. Suppose further that had God instead known that if you were in those circumstances you would have made an undetermined choice to do not-A, then God would not have created you in those circumstances (maybe it would have loused up His providential plan!). In that case you do not have the ability in those circumstances to make the choice of not-A, but nevertheless your choice of A is, I think, clearly free, for it is causally unconstrained—it you who determines that A will be done. So the ability to do otherwise is not a necessary condition of free choice.”
Do you see how WLC is arguing from hypotheticals or as he puts it, different sets of circumstances? I think it is interesting that God hypothetically puts a person into different circumstances and the person’s choices are different in each circumstance. Which is the controlling factor or cause of the person’s choices? The circumstances as the persons makes the choice according to the circumstance their in!
William Lane Craig argues as if God has to run people through different circumstances so God could know their choices but WLC argues that middle knowledge already exists within God Himself. Here, WLC is protecting himself from being accused of denying classic theism, he doesn’t want to be considered unorthodox, even though that’s how God ends up in middle knowledge. You end with a god who is trying different programs (circumstances) in a computer to see if those programs are in accordance with His will!!!
William Lane Craig:(maybe it would have loused up His providential plan!). roland: What?! God’s providential plan can be loused up by the choices a person makes in the circumstances God puts them in? There’s way too many direct and clear declarations of God’s sovereignty over man in the Bible for this kind of thought to even be considered. But, this is the kind of thinking a person comes to when hypotheticals or varying circumstances is your guide and not the clear revelation of Scripture.
Notorious W.L.C.:
“I suggested that God MIGHT (emphasis mine) provide gifts of grace that He knew would be effective in winning the free perseverance of the saints; you suggest that if that’s not feasible, then He just kills off the would-be apostate. The implication of both views is perseverance of the saints along with libertarian freedom.”
roland
Can you see how WLC makes God dependent on IF (this is hypothetical language) the person would persevere? God might provide gifts of grace? I thought it was the grace of God that causes a person to persevere? WLC sounds like a person could persevere if God sees that they do, then provide gifts of grace so that they persevere? Huh?
More Notorious W.L.C:
An alternative view would be to say that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing someone to freely apostatize despite God’s every effort to save Him. For God’s concern is not with just an isolated individual but with a whole world of free creatures whom He seeks to draw freely to salvation. IT MAY BE (more hypothetical language) that if, for example, He kills off Joe before he can fall away, then his little daughter Sherri, embittered by God’s taking her daddy prematurely, refuses to come to faith in God or maybe even falls away from faith herself—in which case God HAS (WLC wrote in another article about lousing up God’s providential plan, here’s an example of how that happens, GOD HAS TO, emphasis mine) to kill off Sherri, too, before she can do so! I think you can see how quickly this can get out of hand. Maybe Sherri (or her child or grandchild, etc.), had God not killed off Sherri’s father and, hence, Sherri herself, would have become a great hymn writer or Christian doctor who would help to bring thousands to Christ. Rather than a single apostate in hell, one might wind up with multitudes in hell instead! When we remember that God’s goal is to bring an optimal number of people freely to salvation, it’s not at all implausible that such a world would include some apostates.
roland
WLC, way smarter than me, would definitely crush me in a debate, uses language that is riddled with hypotheticals and hypothetical language such if, it may be, take a look at the last sentence of the above quote “it’s not at all implausible…”
All you’ve shown so far – is that Middle Knowledge is hypothetical knowledge
Which William Lane Craig agrees with.
Which is also something everyone already knew.
And you’ve had to retract the silly assertion that divine hypothetical knowledge is not exemplified in scripture.
So you’re left with what argument then?
br.d
And you’ve had to retract the silly assertion that divine hypothetical knowledge is not exemplified in scripture.
roland
I have no need to retract it because I never wrote it. What I wrote is that non-calvinists who hold to middle knowledge are arguing from some instances as recorded in Scripture to argue that all of God’s interaction with creation is based on middle knowledge. WLC says so in the article I quoted. He says it many places.
br.d
So you’re left with what argument then?
roland
Here’s Craig’s and the Jesuit Molina’s other problem. When it comes to hermeneutics there are some rules to follow at least in Reformed hermeneutics. One of the rules is that we put priority over prescriptive texts than descriptive texts. A prescriptive text would be a text where God prescribes something about Himself to us.
Isaiah 46:10
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
Other texts tell us something about God. Wec all these descriptive text because they describe something that God does or something about God. Here’s where the Molinists derive their belief from. They use descriptive texts because they as WLC puts it, want to be logically coherent with Scripture. Here’s an example from the open theist and some Molinist use this text as well.
the open theists and some Molinists will argue: you see God did not know what Adam was going to name the animals.
Genesis 2:19
19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
The text doesn’t prescriptively say that God does not know what Adam will name the animals, God is not prescriptively ascribing ignorance to Himself but the text describes God as He came to the man to see what he would call them.
Jeremiah 19:5
5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind—
Another text, perhaps the most favorite used by open theists and Molinists. This is describing God’s interaction with Israel’s sins. God never prescriptively ascribes things that He does not know. You can’t find a verse where God says: I did not know that Israel was going to burn their children in the high places of Baal. But the open theists and some Molinists argue that God did not know what was going on because He did not command it, decree it nor did it come into my mind.
br.d
And you’ve had to retract the silly assertion that divine hypothetical knowledge is not exemplified in scripture.
roland
I have no need to retract it because I never wrote it
br.d
ROLAND
JULY 19, 2021 AT 8:25 AM
I do believe that God could know hypotheticals….I reject that idea because the Bible never presents us with events that are hypotheticals
You either have no idea what you are writing – or you are operating in abject dishonesty
Take your pick! :-]
Roland
the open theists and some Molinists will argue: you see God did not know what Adam was going to name the animals.
br.d
Roland – you are definitively not a logical thinker!!!!
To even say something that is totally idiotic
Middle Knowledge is not the absence of knowledge
That’s like saying flat-eathers don’t believe there is a flat earth
The fact that you perceive your thinking as coherent is very interesting!!!
I disagree with WLC as I believe that the ability to do otherwise, to choose between two or more options, is a condition of genuine choice. Now back to Jesus. How did Jesus know with certainty what Tyre, Sidon, Gomorrah WOULD have done in different circumstances?
Pastor Loz
How did Jesus know with certainty what Tyre, Sidon, Gomorrah WOULD have done in different circumstances?
roland
Jesus knows with certainty what they would have done in different circumstances because what they would have done is knowledge and all knowledge is necessarily contained in God. That’s how Jesus would have known. I agree that the occasions cited by you and br.d that IF the miracles would have been performed in the cities, they WOULD have repented. I am failing to see the relevance of this hypothetical except of its relevance to middle knowledge. The hypothetical Jesus stated gives basis for middle knowledge. And if a person were to say something along the lines that God knows all possible choices, event, etc,. then I am okay with that.
However, the problem arises in that Scripture does not declare that these hypotheticals form the basis of all of God’s knowledge. God decreed what He knows. His decree comes to pass. If He knows possibilities, and they have not come to pass, such as Tyre, Sidon, and Gomorrah’s repentance, this mean He did not decree them. I fail to the see the relevance of things God did not decree.
Another problem I have is that WLC is arguing as if God has the power to put free creatures into multitudes of circumstances, knows the choice they will make in that circumstances but it seems that God cannot know the free choice unless the creature is in that circumstance. If God has power to move creatures from circumstance to circumstance, why doesn’t God have power to decree what that circumstance is?
Middle knowledge also gives the appearance of God learning. It is too speculative for me to embrace. I’ll stick with the clear declarations of God as found in Scripture.
roland
Jesus knows with certainty what they would have done in different circumstances because what they would have done is knowledge and all knowledge is necessarily contained in God.
br.d
Look Mah! The little boy said pointing to Roland’s contradiction.
Divine knowledge of [X] without a divine decree of what [X] will be!
Yes the mother said – you observed correctly my son!
Here we have yet another Calvinist contradiction
They never stop contradicting themselves do they?
How are we not surprised! :-]
br.d
Look Mah! The little boy said pointing to Roland’s contradiction.
Divine knowledge of [X] without a divine decree of what [X] will be!
Yes the mother said – you observed correctly my son!
Here we have yet another Calvinist contradiction
They never stop contradicting themselves do they?
How are we not surprised! :-]
roland
I’ve addressed this issue about hypotheticals enough. I know what I mean, I understand what I mean. Your failure to understand what I MEAN is my failure to clearly communicate what I am saying. I think I’ve stated several times what I believe about God and hypotheticals, I have nothing more to add. It is a contradiction.
You can have the last word on this issue. I’ve obviously failed to communicate a coherent and non-contradictory statement as even THE LITTLE BOY sees it!!! 🙂 One day I hope to be as logically mature as the little boy until then …?
Roland
Jesus knows with certainty what they would have done in different circumstances because what they would have done is knowledge and all knowledge is necessarily contained in God.
Roland
Your failure to understand what I MEAN is my failure to clearly communicate what I am saying.
br.d
I suggest you simply have an unrefined position on the subject.
1) Your first statement above clearly indicates an acknowledgement of Jesus as God.
2) It clearly indicates an acknowledgment of divine certain knowledge of [X] which was not (as Calvinism asserts) a consequence of what [X] was decreed to be.
Therefore we have divine certain knowledge (an aspect of divine omniscience) of [X] without [X] being decreed.
Thus we have what is called “Middle Knowledge” as part of divine omniscience.
Now -Calvinist Paul Helm’s has a more refined position – that you may want to shift over to.
1) He acknowledges without reservation that Middle Knowledge is found within scripture and is therefore part of divine omniscience.
2) He holds Middle Knowledge (even though it exists) as functionally superfluous.
His position is that Calvin’s god’s does not use Middle Knowledge (i.e. knowledge of what [X] WOULD certainly be) to make any decision about what [X] WILL be.
Therefore he does not disagree with Middle Knowledge.
He simply finds it useless.
roland
However, the problem arises in that Scripture does not declare that these hypotheticals FORM THE BASIS OF ALL of God’s knowledge.
br.d
That would make you in agreement with the Molinist!
If human beings are endowed with hypothetical knowledge (with limitations of course).
And human beings are made after the divine image
Let those who have LOGIC connect the dots! :-]
br.d
That would make you in agreement with the Molinist!
roland
I don’t agree with the roman catholic jesuit Molina, so I don’t agree with the roman catholic jesuit Craig. I disagree with Craig when he has to think up of all kinds of hypotheticals as to why God did this and not that, etc.
brd.
If human beings are endowed with hypothetical knowledge (with limitations of course).
And human beings are made after the divine image
Let those who have LOGIC connect the dots! :-]
roland
Now I’m no logician as even the little boy knows but from your two premises the conclusion must be that God has hypothetical knowledge.
I agree that there are verses in Scripture that teach us God has hypothetical knowledge of the hypotheticals (I know I keep contradiction myself, I’ll figure it out, if God willed it, but be patient with me!)
You’re doing something all non-Calvinists do: you are reasoning from man to God. You make God in the image of man. Calvinists reason from God down to man. You are making the argument that because man has hypothetical knowledge (with limitations of course), we are made after the image of God, then God must have hypothetical knowledge.
You are making the image of God in the image of man. We are made in God’s image, God has revealed occasions in Scripture where He has hypothetical knowledge, so we must have some hypothetical knowledge as well. Man is like X, therefore God is like X. This is the reason why Calvinists believe non-calvinists are man-centered, however, Leighton Flowers corrected our great misunderstanding when he said: “Of course we’re man-centered. Centered on the man Jesus Christ!”
roland
I don’t agree with the roman catholic jesuit Molina, so I don’t agree with the roman catholic jesuit Craig.
br.d
Which would make it easy for me to say:
I don’t agree with the Gnostic/NeoPlatonist/Roman-Catholic Augustine
Therefore I don’t agree with the Gnostic/NeoPlatonist/Roman-Catholic Roland
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander! :-]
br.d
Which would make it easy for me to say:
I don’t agree with the Gnostic/NeoPlatonist/Roman-Catholic Augustine
Therefore I don’t agree with the Gnostic/NeoPlatonist/Roman-Catholic Roland
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander! :-]
roland
Exactly! Just like Augustine was a Manichaen, Calvin was an Augustinian therefore he is a Manichaen and further therefore, all Calvinists are really Manichaens! 😀😀😀
I didn’t know that I was a Manichaen until I came across Leighton Flowers.
roland
Exactly! Just like Augustine was a Manichaen, Calvin was an Augustinian therefore he is a Manichaen and further therefore, all Calvinists are really Manichaens! 😀😀😀
I didn’t know that I was a Manichaen until I came across Leighton Flowers.
br.d
You stepped right into your own doodoo! :-]
BTW: Manichaen = Gnostic
Roland
God has revealed occasions in Scripture where He has hypothetical knowledge, so we MUST have some hypothetical knowledge as well.
br.d
Roland’s ten easy lessons in divine hypocrisy
Today – ladies and gentlemen – Roland will show us how to misrepresent others – while accusing them of misrepresenting him.
1) Part of the divine image is to have a mind
2) Scripture says man is made in the image and likeness of god.
Does it LOGICALLY follow – that divine image includes a mind given to man?
Not according to Roland!
That would be making god in man’s image!
Thus Roland provides us with an example of SUPER divine reasoning – cuz he’s a SUPER Christian follower of a SUPER Apostle.
And he thus has SUPER reasoning!
wink-wink! 😀
Pastor Loz
So your God unchangeably decreed for his acolytes to disagree. I can feel the glory.
roland
Yes.
roland
This is the same argument that Leighton Flowers makes: Just because God decreed SOME things does not mean He decreed ALL things.
br.d
That is more LOGICAL then saying – god desires ALL men saved means – he desires SOME Jews and gentiles saved .out of ALL men.
Which resolves to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit says ALL when he means SOME
And thus the Holy Spirit doesn’t know how to clearly differentiate two different concepts when he communicates. :-]
/// roland EXACTLY: IF but the miracles were never performed, it is just a hypothetical. ///
What do you mean, “EXACTLY”? You just told us the Bible does not present us with hypotheticals. Now you are admitting it does, as you said “it is just a hypothetical”. Which is it? And Br D presented you with several more. Make up your mind.
/// roland Are you saying that one event in the Bible means ALL events or choices in the Bible present a hypothetical or another outcome? ///
I am saying exactly what I said, it is not difficult to understand. I am saying God knows things He did not decree/pre-determine. He knows things that did not happen, but WOULD HAVE HAPPENED under different circumstances. Proving that He does not need to decree a thing in order to know that it will happen, or would have happened.
Pastor Loz
Proving that He does not need to decree a thing in order to know that it will happen, or would have happened.
roland
This doesn’t prove anything but it does lead to mere speculation about what could have happened. The point is that events happen or don’t happen, choices are made or not made. There is no point in reasoning from hypotheticals or speculation. Nothing is gained from what could have happened. This is just a Jesuit’s attempt to make God’s sovereignty compatible with man’s LFW.
I have had conversations with Christians who have asked me, “do you believe God is so narrow minded that Jesus really is the only way to the Father?” Yes, because that’s what John 14 says. Then they asked me, “Couldn’t’ have God made another way to be saved?” He could have but He didn’t.
That’s the ridiculousness of Molinism. There’s no end to the speculation, it’s an infinite stating of but “he could have done this and he could have done that.”
Pastor Loz Proving that He does not need to decree a thing in order to know that it will happen, or would have happened.
/// roland: This doesn’t prove anything but it does lead to mere speculation about what could have happened. The point is that events happen or don’t happen, choices are made or not made. There is no point in reasoning from hypotheticals or speculation. Nothing is gained from what could have happened. This is just a Jesuit’s attempt to make God’s sovereignty compatible with man’s LFW. ///
Wait a minute. So JESUS makes a DEFINITIVE STATEMENT about what Tyre and Sidon WOULD HAVE DONE. And you try to hand-wave it away as pointless speculation? What a pity you could not have been there to put Jesus straight. What on earth was He thinking of, wasting His breath?
Nothing to do with Molinism. Everything to do with God’s omniscience being GREATER than your narrow conception of it.
Pastor Loz
Wait a minute. So JESUS makes a DEFINITIVE STATEMENT about what Tyre and Sidon WOULD HAVE DONE.
roland
I never wrote that please do not attribute statements to me that I did not make. Jesus was not speculating.
Luis Molina the Jesuit’s theory leads to speculation. I WAS NOT ADDRESSING WHAT JESUS SAID, I AM ADDRESSING THE THEORY OF MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE. Please reread my post.
My whole point was based on what JESUS said. So why are you introducing your irrelevance about Molinism? It’s just a red herring.
Pastor Loz
So why are you introducing your irrelevance about Molinism? It’s just a red herring.
roland
I do the same thing as you are now doing. I quote Scripture passages to you about God’s sovereignty and you shoot back with something about Calvinism. You are also committing a red herring.
Luis Molina came up with the idea of middle knowledge, prior to that there was no reading of Scripture from a Molinist perspective. You are reading Jesus’s statement about Tyre and Sidon from a Molinist perspective. Molinism is not irrelevant, it is completely relevant because the argument you are making about God having the ability to know hypotheticals is what Molina believed and wrote about.
Yes, it’s irrelevant, because I am quoting JESUS, not Molina. I am not advocating Molinism.
/// Roland I would point out as well that you referred to the circumstances being the cause of choices. These creates a lot of problems for what the Bible reveals about God and His interaction with creation. Under a middle theory of knowledge one could argue that Jesus could have failed to die on the cross because the circumstances could have been different so that the Pharisees would not have crucified Jesus or Pontius Pilate under different circumstances allowed Jesus to go free or Judas would not have betrayed Jesus under different circumstances. That’s silly to speculate in such manner that is contrary to the Bible. It is a contradiction to say that human free choices are determined by the circumstances in which the choices had made, that’s not a free choice. No body can make an argument for libertarian freewill. ///
Wrong. Circumstances are not the CAUSE of choices. They are AN INFLUENCE on choices. I don’t espouse middle knowledge so I am not going to discuss it. Since circumstances do not determine choices, the fact that they influence them does not remove LFW.
Roland
You are reading Jesus’s statement about Tyre and Sidon from a Molinist perspective.
br.d
Now take your standard of misrepresentation and apply it to this claim
Please provide a quote from Pastor Loz which states he is taking Jesus statement from a Molinist perspective.
But of course Pastor Loz said no such thing.
Once again – showing your standard for misrepresentation if bogus
And also showing that you are very efficient at doing the very things you accuse of others! :-]
/// Roland: You are reading Jesus’s statement about Tyre and Sidon from a Molinist perspective.
br.d: Now take your standard of misrepresentation and apply it to this claim
Please provide a quote from Pastor Loz which states he is taking Jesus statement from a Molinist perspective.
But of course Pastor Loz said no such thing. Once again – showing your standard for misrepresentation if bogus
And also showing that you are very efficient at doing the very things you accuse of others! :-]
PL: EXACTLY! If Roland’s god had predetermined him to be honest, he would have claimed no such thing. I quoted Jesus from Jesus’s perspective, to show that He knew with certainty that something WOULD have happened, in different circumstances. Which is exactly what Jesus said, no less, no more.
Roland
I have had conversations with Christians who have asked me, “do you believe God is so narrow minded that Jesus really is the only way to the Father?”
br.d
That’s a question from a Christian??
A Christian by definition is a person who believes in Christ
And Christ is Jesus
So that would make that individual not much of a Christian
Roland
That’s the ridiculousness of Molinism…..etc
br.d
To conflate a Molinist with someone who is a non-Christian Christian – is not very logical! :-]
br.d
That’s a question from a Christian??
A Christian by definition is a person who believes in Christ
And Christ is Jesus
So that would make that individual not much of a Christian
roland
Yes, from a member of the Greeting Team at a megachurch near where I lived. I visited there when I first got saved, I mentioned something about Jesus saving so many people because the church was packed. He said something about Jesus CAN save anybody that hears His Gospel. We talked about those who never hear and it was around that point he asked me about God being narrow minded. At the time, I had been a Christian for about 2-3 months, didn’t know much, the guy made sense it wasn’t until about 2 years later I realize what a non-biblical idea it is.
br.d
To conflate a Molinist with someone who is a non-Christian Christian – is not very logical! :-]
roland
I did not mean to conflate Molinism with wha the guy said. My point is that speculating about things not revealed in Scripture can take us to places the Bible doesn’t go. Molinism believes that there are hypotheticals but that’s all they are, they’re never realized. True, I believe what Jesus said about Tyre and Sidon, but the miracles were never performed. You could ask the question over and over again but the OUTCOME IS THE SAME: the miracles were never performed.
It’s utterly irrelevant that the miracles were not performed, the whole point is that JESUS KNEW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY HAD BEEN. But feel free to keep dodging the issue.
Pastor Loz
It’s utterly irrelevant that the miracles were not performed, the whole point is that JESUS KNEW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY HAD BEEN. But feel free to keep dodging the issue.
roland
What issue am I dodging? I AGREE WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT TYRE AND SIDON. I AGREE HE SAID THEM. I AGREE THAT WHAT JESUS SAID IS TRUE. The point of contention I have with you is the relevance of the hypothetical. The fact that the miracles were never performed is completely relevant. Your argument is that IF they had been performed, then Tyre and Sidon would have repented, which is true, Jesus can know things that never happen, BUT THE MIRACLES WERE NEVER PERFORMED.
I’ll ask you again. Since you disagree with Calvin on this, which of you is the true Calvinist?
Pastor Loz
I’ll ask you again. Since you disagree with Calvin on this, which of you is the true Calvinist?
roland
Calvin, I’m wrong. Is it settled that I’m wrong and not a true Calvinist because I disagree with Calvin?
So your God unchangeably decreed for his acolytes to disagree. I can feel the glory.
br.d
That’s a question from a Christian??
A Christian by definition is a person who believes in Christ
And Christ is Jesus
So that would make that individual not much of a Christian
roland
Yes, from a member of the Greeting Team at a megachurch near where I lived…….
br.d
Poor fellow!
A person who has another way other than Christ – when Christ proclaims himself the only way – is a Christian in perception only.
So to conflate a Molinist with someone who is a non-Christian Christian – is not very logical! :-]
roland
I did not mean to conflate Molinism with wha the guy said. My point is that speculating about things not revealed in Scripture can take us to places the Bible doesn’t go……
br.d
Welcome to Calvinism! :-]
How many times have I bumped into a Calvinist who assumes to speak for god and know all divine secrets! :-]
roland
the Bible never presents us with events that are hypotheticals.
br.d
If the miracles which have been done here had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah they would have repented.
If Saul comes down to the city – the people will surely delivery you up to him.
And the prophet went to Hezekiah and said “Put your house in order because you will not recover from this sickness.
But Hezekiah repented before the Lord.
And the prophet said ” The Lord has heard your prayer and seen your tears; and says behold I will add fifteen years to your life.”
William Lane Craig
-quote
Christian theologians have traditionally affirmed that in virtue of His omniscience God possesses hypothetical knowledge of conditional future contingent events. He knows in advance, for example, what would have happened if He spared the Canaanites from destruction, what Napoleon would have done had he won the Battle of Waterloo, how your neighbor would respond if you were to share the Gospel with him.
Humans posses hypothetical knowledge.
Unfortunately Calvin’s god’s brain is handicapped in that area! :-]
br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
roland
Really? WLC! then I’m LOL!!!
roland
Really? WLC! then I’m LOL!!!
br.d
After you claim scripture presents no examples of hypotheticals – and then later call a verse provided by Pastor Loz an example of a hypothetical – you then LOL at William Lane Craig.
That’s like bragging about your ability to cut down a tree while watching it fall on your house! :-]
roland Really? WLC! then I’m LOL!!!
br.d After you claim scripture presents no examples of hypotheticals – and then later call a verse provided by Pastor Loz an example of a hypothetical – you then LOL at William Lane Craig. That’s like bragging about your ability to cut down a tree while watching it fall on your house! :-]
😀
Pastor Loz: Just as He is NOT SUFFICIENTLY LOVING to be able to love all of humanity enough to send Jesus to die for all, desire salvation for all, genuinely offer salvation to all and enable all to receive it.
///// roland God hates all evildoers. Psalm 5:5 5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers./////
Are you denying that you were once an evil-doer?
roland
God hates all evil doers.
br,d
*AS-IF* what they do is not what he infallibly decrees them to do with an infallible decree which does NOT PERMIT them to do otherwise.
Thus Calvin’s god hates that which he decrees to infallibly come to pass.
And since the Calvinist interprets the term “Works” in “works all things after the counsel of his will” as DETERMINES – then it LOGICALLY follows – in Calvinism Calvin’s god hates his own works.
Calvinists are so blessed to have a god who hates his own works! :-]
Pastor Loz: What a pitiful, multiply insufficient god you worship. Only a depraved mind could come up with such a version of God.
//// roland I worship the true God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. I don’t need to make God into an idol that placates the desires of unrepentant sinners. The non-calvinist God is the golden calf not made up of gold but of non-biblical ideas, philosophies, logic, etc.////
LOL. Straw man. Yahweh, the true God of the Bible who I worship, does not placate the desires of unrepentant sinners. Show me where one non-calvinist has stated that, suggested it or implied it. He judges and punishes unrepentant sinners. How ironic, since the Calvinist god is the one made up of non-biblical ideas and philosophies. The god that Calvinists have created to pander to the desperate, narcissistic desire to feel like they are part of an elite, exclusive special boys and girls club that the majority of humanity is arbitrarily excluded from. Very sad. You still have time to repent though.
Pastor Loz
You still have time to repent though.
roland
Maybe I can be “delivered” by you as you gave “deliverance” to the lady was possessed by the doctrine of demons that is Calvinism.
You would have to want the deliverance.
And you would have to be the DETERMINER of that want.
If you follow any deliverance ministry – you will observe this as a constant principle they understand.
Spirits who have gained influence in a person’s life do so by seduction.
And seduction makes no sense on Calvinism – because the spirit would have to seduce Calvin’s god – who is the sole DETERMINER of every human inclination.
So on Calvinism – you would have a spirit seducing god.
Which of course would make Calvin’s god a house divided against himself – and makes no sense
There is no such thing as a deliverance ministry who doesn’t recognize LFW
Man being granted LFW is a critical part of the principle of demonic influence
That’s why Calvinists cannot function in deliverance.
Pastor Loz
That’s why Calvinists cannot function in deliverance.
roland
So a Calvinists can NEVER be delivered? Does the seducing spirit indwell the Calvinists forever?
/// roland So a Calvinists can NEVER be delivered? Does the seducing spirit indwell the Calvinists forever? ///
Of course calvinists can be delivered, just like satanists and anyone can be delivered.
/// Roland wrote:
Pastor Loz That’s why Calvinists cannot function in deliverance. ////
I’m not surprised you read the Bible carelessly when you can’t attribute quotes to the right person.
Pastor Loz
That’s why Calvinists cannot function in deliverance.
roland
So a Calvinists can NEVER be delivered?
br.d
Read Pastor Loz statement again – that is not what he is saying
roland
Does the seducing spirit indwell the Calvinists forever?
br.d
As long as Calvin’s god has decreed.
The Calvinist has no say in the matter of anything – because his every impulse is determined by an external mind – and not by himself.
br.d
As long as Calvin’s god has decreed.
The Calvinist has no say in the matter of anything – because his every impulse is determined by an external mind – and not by himself.
roland
Right, it’s been decreed that Calvinism is a doctrine of demons, I believe it, therefore I have been decreed to be demon possessed, unless God turns back His degree, I’M DOOMED!
roland
Right, it’s been decreed that Calvinism is a doctrine of demons, I believe it, therefore I have been decreed to be demon possessed, unless God turns back His degree, I’M DOOMED!
br.d
Well – if you understand Calvinism’s doctrine of the wheat and the chaff – then you understand – that a statistical probability of being doomed is your starting point.
So it really doesn’t make much difference what demonic activities Calvin’s god throws into the recipe of your life.
He only sweetens the pot for his own satisfaction
And your torment is part of his good pleasure.
So role with it! :-]
br.d
So role with it! :-]
roland
I am like a wheel!!
Pastor Loz: You still have time to repent though.
/// roland Maybe I can be “delivered” by you as you gave “deliverance” to the lady was possessed by the doctrine of demons that is Calvinism. ///
She wasn’t possessed by the doctrine. She was demonized. Pretty good chance you would need deliverance, but you have to be willing. Doesn’t look like you are willing as you are still infatuated with your demonic philosophy.
Pastor Loz
Doesn’t look like you are willing as you are still infatuated with your demonic philosophy.
roland
Well, I guess I have no hope, looks like I’ll be demon possessed until the end because I won’t depart from my demonic philosophy. God has decided my fate. Maybe the circumstances will change and I WILL desire to be delivered out of Calvinism and demon possession.
/// roland: Well, I guess I have no hope, looks like I’ll be demon possessed until the end because I won’t depart from my demonic philosophy. God has decided my fate. Maybe the circumstances will change and I WILL desire to be delivered out of Calvinism and demon possession. ///
Those statements would certainly be consistent with your philosophy of theistic fatalism. It all depends what calvi-god has unchangeably ordained for you. Very much like what Muslims believe Allah has unchangeably ordained for them. You definitely share that deterministic view.
roland
God has decided my fate.
br.d
That is the core foundational proposition of Calvinism which separates it and makes it unique
roland
Maybe the circumstances will change and I WILL desire to be delivered out of Calvinism and demon possession.
br.d
But of course Calvin’s god determines circumstances
Just as Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will come to pass within your brain.
Thus deciding your fate
And of course – on Calvinism – you have no say in the matter of anything – cuz everything about you was determined before you were created.
br.d
In Calvinism Pharaoh’s will is 100% determined by Calvin’s god.
Calvin’s god would therefore be working against his own decrees – if he were working over against Pharaoh’s will
roland
The Bible does not express the interaction between God and pharaoh as God “would therefore be working against his own decrees – if he were working over against pharaoh’s will.”
How else do you explain it?
Exodus 3:20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go.
God will work so that pharaoh will let Israel go, God knows it because He is going to make it come to pass.
roland
The Bible does not express the interaction between God and pharaoh as God “would therefore be working against his own decrees – if he were working over against pharaoh’s will.”
br.d
You have your bible
And we also have Calvinist doctrine.
Those are two different things – unless you want to argue that Calvinist doctrine is CANON
The fundamental sacred core of Calvinist doctrine is the proposition that Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
That would have to include every nano-second of Pharaoh’s will
So Calvin’s god is RENDERING-CERTAIN every nano-second of Pharaoh’s will by infallible decree
And now you have Calvin’s god working against what he decrees.
So your interpretation makes Calvin’s god a house divided against himself.
//00 Roland wrote: Another result of libertarian freewill is that it denies God’s foreknowledge. In verse 19 God says He is sure that Egypt will not let Israel you go. Under a system of libertarian freewill God CANNOT know this because Pharaoh’s decision is free. Either God really knows what Pharaoh will do or He doesn’t know what Pharaoh will do because of his libertarian free choice.////
What utter bull. God exhaustively foreknows every LFW choice of all people. He is omnitemporal and inherently omniscient.
Pastor Loz
What utter bull. God exhaustively foreknows every LFW choice of all people. He is omnitemporal and inherently omniscient.
roland
I agree with you that God exhaustively foreknows the choices of all people.
LFW means that a person has options available to them, the person has the ability to choose or not to choose, and the person’s choice is the source of the person (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
If this is true, then how can a person’s choice be free if God already knows the person’s choice before they make it?
If the choice is foreknown by God, that means God already knows what the person chooses, then the person is going to make it or God’s knowledge of the choice is false.
If the person’s choice is already known by God, that means the person is going to make that choice because God already knows it. The choice is not free at least in the sense that it is bound by God’s foreknowledge.
Calvinists believe God perfectly knows all choices that creatures will make because He decreed those choices. God does not LEARN the choice of His creature just by looking into the future and learning what they will choose, He knows them because He decreed them, He ordained them, He works all things after the counsel of His own will according to
Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Since God is omnitemporal, He is already present before, during and after every choice is made. A man can have 20 options and God has already seen the choice he freely makes. That’s basic.
roland
LFW means that a person has options available to them, the person has the ability to choose or not to choose,
br.d
Where multiple options exist – the person has at least 2 options.
He has both [A] and [NOT A] from which to choose.
However, since multiple options are MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by determinism – since only one single option can be RENDERED-CERTAIN – then there is only ONE single option available the person.
Therefore there is no such thing as [A] and [NOT A]
There can by [A]
or
There cay be [NOT A]
But only ONE of these options can be RENDERED-CERTAIN
And the other option would FALSIFY the RENDERED-CERTAIN option
Which is not LOGICALLY possible.
Which means the function of “choice” is only available to Calvin’s god
Who is the one who “chooses” which option will be RENDERED-CERTAIN for the human
Which means there is NO choice for the human.
And if the human as a PERCEPTION of having multiple options from which to choose – then according to the doctrine – that PERCEPTION would have to be an infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION.
Roland
If the choice is foreknown by God, that means God already knows what the person chooses
br.d
No!
It means – Calvin’s god has made a choice of which option he wants
And that ONE single option is RENDERED-CERTAIN to be the person’s INCLINATION.
The person is left with only ONE single options. – which he IS NOT free and NOT permitted to disobey
The person has no choice in the matter of what his INCLINATION will be.
Therefore the function of choice doesn’t exist for the person
///// Roland: I agree with you that God exhaustively foreknows the choices of all people. LFW means that a person has options available to them…If this is true, then how can a person’s choice be free if God already knows the person’s choice before they make it? /////
You are confusing certainty with necessity.
///// Roland: If the choice is foreknown by God, that means God already knows what the person chooses, then the person is going to make it or God’s knowledge of the choice is false. If the person’s choice is already known by God, that means the person is going to make that choice because God already knows it. The choice is not free at least in the sense that it is bound by God’s foreknowledge. /////
The person is going to make that choice because that is the choice they are going to make. It is not bound by God’s foreknowledge, it reflects the fact that God already knows all choices perfectly. It doesn’t limit their options. Whichever option they will choose, that is the choice that God already knows. You are putting the cart before the horse.
You are also LIMITING God’s omniscience. You are saying He CANNOT know an LFW choice. God is inherently omniscient. His omniscience is not limited by ANYTHING, not by His own decrees, and not by LFW. You have a low view of God’s omniscience. He only knows because He decreed.
Your comment about God not looking into the future shows that you did not understand my comment about omnitemporality. Since God is already in all of our future, He doesn’t need to look into it. And He doesn’t learn because He has already known.
You are butchering Eph 1:11. It does not mean that God ordains every choice that people make. That is shocking hermeneutics. It means that everything God does, He does according to the counsel of His. Just like in the OT when it says God does everything He pleases. That is not the same as saying God causes everything that happens.
///// Roland Acts 16:14 14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Lydia before her heart was opened by God was already a worshipper of God but God OPENED her heart to HEED the things SPOKEN by Paul. The ESV translates heed as “to pay attention.” The text doesn’t say Lydia was a worshipper of God, then God offered her the choice of her heart being opened, and Lydia out of the liberty of her freewill ALLOWED God to open her heart. /////
So you believe that Lydia was already a worshipper of God, yet at the same time a spiritual corpse and God hater? Now that’s a contradiction.
Pastor Loz
So you believe that Lydia was already a worshipper of God, yet at the same time a spiritual corpse and God hater? Now that’s a contradiction.
roland
Yes because that is what the text says. In Reformed theology we have a belief about reading the Bible. First, we believe in the PERSPICUITY or clarity of Scripture. We believe that we can gain a basic understanding of the Bible JUST BY READING IT. We believe that God wrote His Word so that we could do this. Therefore, we also believe in the PLAIN READING of Scripture. However, we also believe that God enables us by His Spirit to truly understand God’s Word.
So, as I have this presupposition, I believe I can read Acts 16:14 and come to this conclusion:
1. Lydia is already a worshipper of God –
2. God opened her heart to heed, pay attention to, respond to, the words Paul was speaking –
Whatever Lydia’s spiritual condition was at the time, she NEEDED God to open her heart to hear Paul. My conclusion comes from a plain reading of Acts 16:14. I do not need to go to another verse to understand this, I don’t have to explain anything about what happened, I can just simply believe what the text says. The application of this text to the hearers is a separate matter. If I was to teach or preach this text I would not emphasize the truth that Lydia is already a worshipper of God, I would have to mention it as it is in the text. But for me, I would emphasize the work of God opening Lydia’s heart.
Why? Because without God’s work, Lydia is not going to be able to hear, respond to, pay attention to Paul’s words. I would further emphasize that if anyone REALLY wants to hear, respond to, pay attention to God’s Word, then He needs to open their hearts. They cannot do it out of their own libertarian freewill or by some kind of work or method. God needs to do it.
Pastor Loz: So you believe that Lydia was already a worshipper of God, yet at the same time a spiritual corpse and God hater? Now that’s a contradiction.
///// Roland: Yes because that is what the text says. /////
Looking for the bit in that text that says Lydia was a spiritual corpse and God-hater. Maybe it’s just in the MacArthur “study” Bible…
///// Roland: In Reformed theology we have a belief about reading the Bible. First, we believe in the PERSPICUITY or clarity of Scripture. We believe that we can gain a basic understanding of the Bible JUST BY READING IT. We believe that God wrote His Word so that we could do this. Therefore, we also believe in the PLAIN READING of Scripture. However, we also believe that God enables us by His Spirit to truly understand God’s Word. /////
That has got to be the best joke I heard all year. Hence the volumes, upon volumes of Deformed theology “explaining” to us how the plain meaning of Scripture doesn’t actually say what it says.
////// Roland: So, as I have this presupposition, I believe I can read Acts 16:14 and come to this conclusion:
1. Lydia is already a worshipper of God –
2. God opened her heart to heed, pay attention to, respond to, the words Paul was speaking – /////
You left out the part that Lydia simultaneousy worship and hated God. You won’t get that from a “plain reading” of Acts 16:14. And you know it. You don’t even know what God was opening her heart to, you automatically assume it was initial faith to salvation.
Roland
We believe that we can gain a basic understanding of the Bible JUST BY READING IT.
br.d
Now this statement serves as an excellent example of a MASQUERADE.
Firstly – the conclusions Calvinists draw from scripture are IDIOSYNCRATIC
They have gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy past the point of “basic understanding”
So describing Calvinist conclusions as “basic understanding” is simply a MASQUERADE.
Secondly – LOGIC tells us – the idea of a human brain “gaining understanding”.assumes a degree of human AUTONOMY.
What is going on inside the Calvinist brain – is simply PERCEPTIONS [both TRUE and FALSE] – which an external mind has decreed to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass there.
The Calvinist – according to his own doctrine – is NOT the DETERMINER of the thoughts which come to pass within his brain.
So that rules out the process of his brain “gaining understanding”
The very AUTONOMY which Roland asserts the bible does not teach – is the very AUTONOMY he assumes his brain has.
And he’s totally oblivious to the contradiction
br.d
So describing Calvinist conclusions as “basic understanding” is simply a MASQUERADE.
roland
More straw man, more dishonesty, more misrepresentation. When did I ever write “Calvinists conclusions” Go back and reread my post, I wrote a basic understanding of the Bible.
br.d
What is going on inside the Calvinist brain – is simply PERCEPTIONS [both TRUE and FALSE] – which an external mind has decreed to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass there.
roland
Another false, dishonest, and misrepresentation of Calvinism. You build YOUR CALVINISTIC STRAW MAN, then you deconstruct him.
br.d
The very AUTONOMY which Roland asserts the bible does not teach – is the very AUTONOMY he assumes his brain has.
And he’s totally oblivious to the contradiction
roland
I’ve never ASSUMED anything. Just because a person makes choice doesn’t mean they are AUTONOMOUS. No one is autonomous unless Paul is wrong when he preached this in Acts 17
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one [j]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,
Where ever you live, you really chose to live there but it was DETERMINED by God in eternity? Unless you deny that God DETERMINED that, which you probably do because it is NOT LOGICAL to believe that you chose to live where you but God determined it.
I’ll stick with what Scriptures states over logic always.
Or unless you don’t believe what this verse says about God and man’s plans.
Psalm 33:10
10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
Or you probably don’t. According you this text should read: The Lord HOPES to bring the counsel of the nations to nothing BUT HE CAN’T BECAUE OF LIBERTARIAN FREEWILL. He HOPES, WISHES makes the plans of the peoples of no effect BUT HE CAN’T BECAUSE IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY HE GAVE MAN LIBERTARIAN FREEWILL AND THEREFORE ARE VERSES ABOUT GOD’S WILL MUST BE PREFACED WITH MAN’S LIBERTARIAN FREEWILL. No wonder non-calvinists have to jump through grammatical hoops and appeals to logic, as well as misrepresentation, straw man arguments.
br.d
So describing Calvinist conclusions as “basic understanding” is simply a MASQUERADE.
roland
More straw man, more dishonesty, more misrepresentation. When did I ever write “Calvinists conclusions” Go back and reread my post, I wrote a basic understanding of the Bible.
br.d
Roland I think you are smarter than that
At least I hope so!!!!
The term “basic understanding” LOGICALLY entails conclusions
If in fact you are smart enough to know that – then you are simply playing deceptive maneuver games.
Isn’t it strange that the majority of Christians’ BASIC UNDERSTANDING of Scripture is NOT CALVINISTIC! I guess calvi-god only wanted his followers to have the esoteric version of basic understanding…
Pastor Loz
Isn’t it strange that the majority of Christians’ BASIC UNDERSTANDING of Scripture is NOT CALVINISTIC! I guess calvi-god only wanted his followers to have the esoteric version of basic understanding…
roland
The majority of the Christians must be right?
Ok, then the majority of the WORLD doesn’t believe the Bible is true, God exists, Jesus is the only way for salvation, etc.? Then the minority of those who are Christians must be wrong BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THE MAJORITY!
Pastor Loz, the majority is right, the minority is wrong, join the majority of the world so that you can have a right opinion about the Bible.
Yes you missed my point, as you normally do. My point was not that majority = right, but that your God unchangeably ordained the majority of Christians to be wrong. All for his maximal glory of course. And at least until some of them read Sproul
br.d
The term “basic understanding” LOGICALLY entails conclusions
If in fact you are smart enough to know that – then you are simply playing deceptive maneuver games.
roland
When I wrote “we” in my post I meant humans in general, not Calvinists. Maybe I should have clarified my post. I can read the Bible with my ten year child, he can have a basic understanding of the Bible says because he can understand the vocabulary, the grammar, etc. That’s what Reformed theology means when we say that the Bible is clear enough for anybody to understand. A BASIC understanding. But I would add that NOT ALL of Scripture is easily understood.
I believe God gave us His Word so that PEOPLE can read, have a basic understanding of it, so that they may live a life pleasing to God. The Bible was not written for theologians, philosophers, logicians, scientists, academics, etc. I would also add that Ephesians 4 says God gave us teachers because there are truths in the Bible that need to be taught to us for lack of spiritual understanding.
I hope I have cleared up any misunderstandings.
Roland
I can read the Bible with my ten year child, he can have a basic understanding of the Bible says because he can understand the vocabulary, the grammar, etc.
br.d
“understanding”?
Again you are using language which INFERS a degree of AUTONOMY
In Calvinism your brain has INCLINATIONS and your brain as PERCEPTIONS.
Calvin’s god’s brain has “understanding” because his mind has the power to determine TRUE from FALSE.
But he determines EVERYTHING for you.
So he does not grant the AUTONOMOUS function of determining TRUE from FALSE to you.
Again – the very AUTONOMY you insist does not exist – is the very AUTONOMY you assume.
And that is why the poor Calvinist is captured in a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system
br.d
And that is why the poor Calvinist is captured in a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system
roland
Just like the man in Mark 9:24 who has both BELIEF and UNBELIEF. The “POOR” Calvinist is capture in a double-minded belief system.
roland
Just like the man in Mark 9:24 who has both BELIEF and UNBELIEF. The “POOR” Calvinist is capture in a double-minded belief system.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Just like the man in Mark 9:24 who according to Calvinism – was a god-hater and totally unable to have the function of belief – and at the same time had belief.
Yes – that is called DOUBLE-MINDED
roland
I’ve never ASSUMED anything. Just because a person makes choice doesn’t mean they are AUTONOMOUS.
br.d
A complete obfuscation – since in that thread we were not discussing choices – but rather brain function.
And as I have detailed many time before – there is no such thing as a Calvinist having a choice for the following reasons:
1) Multiple options do not exist because only ONE single option is physically POSSIBLE to RENDERED-CERTAIN
YES or NO are 2 options not 1
TRUE or FALSE are 2 options not 1
YES and NO cannot both be RENDERED-CERTAIN – only 1 of then can be RENDERED-CERTAIN
TRUE and FALSE cannot both be RENDERED-CERTAIN – only 1 of them can be RENDERED-CERTAIN
Therefore – for any INCLINATION in your brain – only 1 single INCLINATION is ever permitted.
Thus only one single option is ever permitted.
2) The process of choice LOGICALLY ENTAILS at least 2 options [A] or [NOT A] which don’t exist in your doctrine
CONCLUSION
There is no such thing as your brain making a choice.
What is going on in your brain is an INCLINATION – which is always solely and exclusively determined by an external mind.
No AUTONOMY!!!!
So Roland, what is the calvinistic (as opposed to normative dictionary) definition of CHOICE?
//// Roland John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
Jesus says “the Son gives life to whom He will” yet further in chapter 5 humans are still responsible for not coming to Jesus. ////
And the Son wills to give life to those who believe. After they believe. Same verses as I have been citing for your previous points
Pastor Loz
And the Son wills to give life to those who believe. After they believe. Same verses as I have been citing for your previous points
roland
But here in John 5:21 there is no mention of men believing or Jesus giving life to them AFTER they believe. Jesus simply says “as the Father raises the dead…” Do the dead need to believe in the Father before they are raised? Because that’s what I hear you saying.
Jesus is saying “as the” or like the Father raises the dead “the Son gives life to whom HE will” it doesn’t say “the Son gives life to whoever believes in Him then whom He will.”
It sounds like you are reading your philosophies into the text?
John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
It’s clear to me you haven’t read or understood John 5:40, 20:30, Eph 1:13, Gal 3:2. That’s why you haven’t even attempted to address them head on. Hence your question.
Pastor Loz
Yahweh is freer than the calvinist god, in such a way that He is actually free to give humans LFW
roland
And where is that found in Scripture?
br.d
The verses where it says Calvinism’s “Compatibilistic” freedom is given to man! :-]
In this case – the difference is not what any verse says – its what a HUMAN INTERPRETATION says.
Roland you need to come up with something real
There is no such thing as a non-Calvinist who claims his god is in bondage. :-]
PL:
Calvinism/WF – “Bill is taller than Fred, but yet not in such a way that Fred is shorter than Bill” 😀
br.d
Wonderful!
You’ve got the Calvinist mode of thinking – as well as the vernacular down perfect! ;-D
br.d
Here is how it works:
1) Everything that comes to pass is determined by Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world.
roland
True, yet, God is not the author of sin (James 1:13) nor does He violate the freewill of man nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away but established (Acts 2:23; Matt: 17:12; Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11; Pro. 16:33).
br.d
Nor does he violate the LFW of man?????
br.d
Nor does he violate the LFW of man????
roland
Not the LFW of man but the freewill of man. Yes, since the 17th century Calvinists have confessed that man has freewill 🤔
br.d Nor does he violate the LFW of man????
//// roland Not the LFW of man but the freewill of man. Yes, since the 17th century Calvinists have confessed that man has freewill �� ////
You now Br D, that “compatibilistic free will” of man, the one that isn’t free at all becaue:
1. Calvigod unchangeably ordained that man would inherit an unchosen sinful nature
2. Calvigod unchangeably ordained that man’s unchosen inherited sinful nature would irresistibly determine all of his desires
3. Calvigod unchangeably ordained that man would always act according to his strongest desires
That one.
Pastor Loz But then, who are we, o men, to question calvinism?
///// roland Another strawman as Calvinists never say this. It is a lie projected onto Calvinists because of the dishonesty of non-calvinists. /////
It’s what calvinists mean, all the time. Because of their god complex, they equate calvinism with God and His Word. Question calvinism, and you are questioning God. It’s a lame bullying tactic they attempt to shut non-calvinists down from questioning their philosophical theory. It doesn’t work.
Pastor Loz Yahweh is freer than the calvinist god, in such a way that He is actually free to give humans LFW
///// roland And where is that found in Scripture? Chapter and verse please? Where did God say in His word that He has given us LFW? If it’s not in Scripture it must be MAN-MADE!!! Wait, I thought only Calvinists used MAN-MADE creeds and confessions, you know, those statements that declare God’s truths are JOKES!!! /////
Already explained to you but you still have your cultic blinkers on. Every time God gives man a choice, warns him against making the wrong choice, rebukes, laments and punishes men’s wrong choices. So it’s throughout the Bible. We leave it to calvinists to proof text. Whereas your god makes false, dishonest, fake, disingenuous instructions, rebukes and laments.
br.d
Nor does he violate the LFW of man????
roland
Not the LFW of man but the freewill of man.
br.d
Free from being 100% determined by an external mind?
roland
He is not MAKING those perceptions for us.
br.d
AH! Now you’re trying to have it both ways!!!
On Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) everything is FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of a THEOS – at the foundation of the world – at a point in which your brain does not exist.
Those perceptions are decreed to come to pass within your brain at a certain time
And that becomes the perception within your brain by INFALLIBLE decree
Which your brain is incapable of doing – and which your brain is incapable of resisting.
Roland
We still experience the perception.
br.d
Correct!
You have a PERCEPTION of your PERCEPTIONS
But your PERCEPTION of your PERCEPTION is also 100% determined by an external mind
1) It is FIRST CONCEIVED in a mind that is external to your mind
2) It is decreed to infallibly come to pass for a given window in time
3) And your mind has NO AUTONOMOUS function of doing any such thing
Roland
The Bible holds two truths together
br.d
So for you — the bible holds that LFW exists and doesn’t exist at the same time
And for you – the bible holds there is NO AUTONOMY and yet there is AUTONOMY at the same time
Roland
but you would consider them DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS or CONTRADICTIONS.
br.d
Because something that is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time is the definition of contradiction.
So if the Calvinist INTERPRETATION resolves to a contradiction – then the contradiction is not with the Bible
It is with the INTERPRETATION
So the DOUBLE-MINDED INTERPRETATION assumes your brain has the very AUTONOMY which you say does not exist
br.d
Because something that is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time is the definition of contradiction.
So if the Calvinist INTERPRETATION resolves to a contradiction – then the contradiction is not with the Bible
It is with the INTERPRETATION
roland
WARNING: WHAT FOLLOWS IS A RANDOM BIBLE VERSE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AS A PRETEXT FOR A PROOFTEXT OF CALVINISM.
Br.d, I found the first Calvinist in the Bible, you know Calvinists, those who practice and believe DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
Mark 9:24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
WHAT?!!! The father of the child has both BELIEVE AND UNBELIEF!!! Poor Calvinist, how can he live with himself? He’s a walking contradiction. Why didn’t Jesus REBUKE him for his BELIEF/UNBELIEF? How can the man HONESTLY tell Jesus that he BELIEVES but he needs help with MY UNBELIEF? The man is obviously LYING to himself, LYING to Jesus, and now LYING to everyone who reads his words. 🤔🤔🤔How dare Jesus allow this man to PERSIST in both BELIEF and UNBELIEF? Jesus would have failed His logic exam!!! He cannot even spot a CONTRADICTION!!! 🤔🤔🤔
Excellent example of where Calvinist thinking – and thus INTERPRETATION of scripture – is self-contradicting. :-]
br.d
Excellent example of where Calvinist thinking – and thus INTERPRETATION of scripture – is self-contradicting. :-]
roland
Wrong again. It is me using your presupposition of logic and applying it to Scripture. Under your system that logic is KING, Jesus would fail the test. Because LOGIC is your ultimate authority, Scripture must be subjected to it and must conform to logic.
You wrote that something cannot be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
The man in Mark 9:24 BELIEVES and has UNBELIEF at the same time. Under your system of logic, Jesus failed to correct the man’s contradiction. Either it is biblical to believe and not to believe at the same time or it is not, according to your system of logic.
Roland
The man in Mark 9:24 BELIEVES and has UNBELIEF at the same time. Under your system of logic
br.d
FALSE
In Calvinism the man is totally depraved which means he is a god hater, unable to believe because he hasn’t been given the gift of faith
But the text says he does believe – so the Calvinist resolution to that is that he believes and does not believe at the same time.
And IF that Calvinist assumption were TRUE – then Jesus failed to correct the man’s contradiction. E
Roland
Either it is biblical to believe and not to believe at the same time or it is not, according to your system of logic.
br.d
According to the Calvinist system – in which so many things are held as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
Like for example – the fact that “MERE” permission doesn’t exist in Calvinism – and therefore is FALSE
And yet the Calvinist goes about his office *AS-IF* his brain is “MERELY” permitted to determine TRUE from FALSE
And thus for the Calvinist “MERE” permission is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time
br.d
But the text says he does believe – so the Calvinist resolution to that is that he believes and does not believe at the same time.
roland
Because that is what the text says. It says the man believes and yet has unbelief. Here’s John Calvin commenting on those who believe that if our faith is sound, it cannot be improved. Calvin writes from his Institutes 1541 edition, pp. 564-65
“Let them answer what kind of faith they think that man had who cried: ‘Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!’ (Mark 9:24). For faith like this, though scarcely begun, was good, but could be made still better by a lessening of unbelief. However, the surest refutation of their point of view comes from their own conscience, for if they admit they are sinners – which, like it or not, they cannot deny – they have no choice but to blame it on the imperfection of their faith.”
Calvin further writes on page 565:
“So in this passage to believe with all one’s heart is not to cleave perfectly to Jesus Christ, but to simply embrace him with open heart and unfeigned zeal. It is not to be, as it were, replete with him, but fervently to hunger, thirst, and yearn for him.”
The Calvinist view is the biblical view of the text as it is plainly stated.
Interesting how the text can say he believed and yet – the doctrine says he was a god-hater – who is unable to believe without being given a special gift of faith.
Perhaps his brain was irresistibly zapped just before talking with Jesus – with a little bit of faith – but not quite enough?
br.d
According to the Calvinist system – in which so many things are held as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
roland
Like the man in Mark 9:24, right, two contradictory ideas being held simultaneously by the man. Something you MUST deny by logic, so you end up denying the truth of Scripture because of your logic.
Roland
so you end up denying the truth of Scripture because of your logic.
br.d
Only if Calvinism’s interpretation of scripture is Canon! :-]
I know this is an ongoing conversation between you all right now, and so I’m sorry for sticking my nose in here where it doesn’t belong. I haven’t read the whole string of comments (I only have a moment online right now to check in a see what’s going on here), but I just wanted to point out how silly it is for a Calvinist (Roland) to use Psalm 33:10 to defend Calvinism: “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.”
If Calvinism is true, then the plans of the nations that the Lord brings to nothing are really HIS plans in the first place (because in Calvinism, people can’t really make any plans on their own). So Calvi-god first dreams up these plans and then puts them in the heads of the people … and then he brings those plans to nothing.
If Calvinism is true, all this shows is that God really just thwarts His own plans, not the plans of the nations. (Unless Roland wants to say that people really can make their own plans, apart from God causing it.) What a silly charade Calvi-god plays, acting like people make plans on their own that he then has to override, when they were really his plans all along!
This verse actually defeats Calvinism, not supports it.
You are not sticking your nose in Heather, and you make a brilliant point. Just another example of the pantomime where calvi-god plays both sides of the chess board and punches himself in the face. All for his maximal glory of course 😀
HOW TO MAKE A CALVINIST STRAW MAN
To see the joke here you will have to go on to web-site – its a meme! :-]
Well said Heather!
Its nice to see you again!
Hope all is well with you an yours!
br.d
Heather writes, “in Calvinism, people can’t really make any plans on their own).:
Actually, they do. People are still made in God’s image; they have minds, they learn, they understand how things work, they interact with others, etc. However, no one is born with faith, so a person must first hear the gospel and receive faith before they can be saved – obviously, God is in control of that process. Because people are not born with faith, they are what the world makes them: selfish, covetous, and prideful. They make plans that reflect their selfish, covetous and prideful desires. God already decided where to place limits on the things they want to do, but within those limits they plot and plan to their hearts content.
Heather
in Calvinism, people can’t really make any plans on their own
rhutchin
Actually, they do.
br.d
Its critical to understand what the Calvinist is hiding in statements such as these
In Calvinism – the SENSE in which people “make plans” – is the exact same SENSE in which robots “make plans”
Simply because robots brains are similarly 100% determined
rhutchin
People are still made in God’s image
br.d
Here we have the Calvinist using language designed to MASQUERADE attributes of god’s “image” which are NOT granted to humans in in Calvinism
1) Calvin’s god has multiple options from which to choose
He does not grant this part of his image to humans – because only one single option can ever be RENDERED-CERTAIN
2) Because Calvin’s god has multiple options from which to chose – he enjoys a TRUE definition of “choice”
He does not grant “choice” as a part of his image to humans
What he grants to humans are INCLINATIONS which he solely and exclusively and meticulously determines
And only one single INCLINATION can be RENDERED-CERTAIN
Thus the function of “choice” is not granted as part of his image to humans
rhutchin
they have minds
br.d
In which every impulse is meticulously determined by an external mind
rhutchin
they learn, they understand
br.d
Here we have a INFERENCE of human AUTONOMY which does not exist
No ability to determine TRUE from FALSE – equates to no ability to learn or understand
rhutchin
they interact with others
br.d
Other humans whose brains are 100% meticulously determined – just as their are
Thus they function as chess pieces on a board – with Calvin’s god decreeing impulses come to pass within their brains
The very AUTONOMY the Calvinist claims to not exist – is the very AUTONOMY he tries to SMUGGLE back into his system
br.d writes, “In Calvinism – the SENSE in which people “make plans” – is the exact same SENSE in which robots “make plans”
Simply because robots brains are similarly 100% determined”
The “programming” in people is the exclusion of faith. Otherwise, a person is an AI without the “A.” In constructing humans, God included extras that cannot be duplicated in robots or in their programming.
rhutchin
The “programming” in people is the exclusion of faith.
br.d
Correct!
“exclusion” as their initial state of design – and “inclusion” IF that is the next phase of their design
In other words – faith is a FUNCTION which Calvin’s god simply “excludes” or “includes” to an entities’ program.
rhutchin
Otherwise, a person is an AI without the “A.”
br.d
Which of course is a complete non-sequitur!!!
Since intelligence follows the same exact mode and is acquired the exact same way in both cases
Every impulse within the brain of both entities is similarly determined exactly the same way.
And if intelligence in that context can be called “Artificial”
Then it is the term “Artificial” applies – where that intellegcne is similarly determined.
rhutchin
In constructing humans, God included extras that cannot be duplicated in robots or in their programming.
br.d
Oh now we have “Extras” which is simply another NEBULOUS term designed to MASQUERADE attributes which Calvin’s god does not grant to humans.
1) Multiple options from which to choose is an attribute of the divine image which is NOT granted
2) Which means choice is an attribute of the divine image which is NOT granted
3) And being the DETERMINER of TRUE from FALSE on any matter – is an attribute of the divine image which is NOT granted
The Calvinist is certainly not going to want to call the “image” granted to himself “Artificial”
Even though that would be the NORMATIVE term to describe it. :-]
But then that’s where Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking comes to his rescue
Like Calvin says
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, AS-IF nothing were determined about any part.”
CALVINIST HUMOR – HOW CALVIN’S GOD UPDATES THE CALVINIST’S PROGRAM
Note: Log in to SOT101 to see the meme
Rhutchin says: “God already decided where to place limits on the things they want to do, but within those limits they plot and plan to their hearts content.”
Limits implies freedom to move on your own within those limits. Doesn’t fit with true Calvinism where God “ordains (preplans/causes/controls)” all that happens. So I’m guessing by “plot and plan to their hearts content,” Rhutchin means “according to the nature God gave them which only allows them to desire to do the things He predestined them to do, and nothing else.”
Calvi-god to people: “I am giving you limits, but within those limits you are free to do only the things I predestined/cause you to do!”
The Calvinist idea of “free will.”
Ha ha ha! What a joke!
heather writes, “Rhutchin means “according to the nature God gave them which only allows them to desire to do the things He predestined them to do, and nothing else.”
Obviously, God does not give people faith at birth but only when they hear the gospel. Without faith, people desire sin and that is what God predestined them to desire until they receive faith. So, you are correct.
Then, “Limits implies freedom to move on your own within those limits.”
Yes, but we all can’t be Einsteins. People have different IQ’s, different knowledge, different understanding of the way things work, different physical abilities. Not many people will be Michael Jordan or a hedge fund manager. People are free within the physical, intellectual, and cultural limits God imposed on them at birth.
rhutchin
Obviously, God does not give people faith at birth
br.d
Right! Babies don’t even have faith that their mothers will feed them! :-]
rhutchin
but only when they hear the gospel.
br.d
*AS-IF* hearing the gospel is going to make any difference – when not one single impulse can come to pass within a human being’s brain unless Calvin’s god specifically decrees it :-].
rhutchin
Without faith, people desire sin and that is what God predestined them to desire until they receive faith.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god who meticulously determines every nano-second of man’s nature predestines every impulse.
rhutchin
People are free within the physical, intellectual, and cultural limits God imposed on them at birth.
br.d
Don’t you just love it when a Calvinist manufactures language designed to MASQUERADE a degree of human AUTONOMY which doesn’t exist in his system! Always trying to SMUGGLE back in – things their system EXCLUDES.
And never stopping to ask themselves why they have to do that!
Understanding Calvinism is easy
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a MASK of IN-Determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points!
br.d
*AS-IF* hearing the gospel is going to make any difference – when not one single impulse can come to pass within a human being’s brain unless Calvin’s god specifically decrees it :-].
roland
Another straw man as you are misrepresenting what Calvinists believe and teach regarding the gift of faith to MAKE IT EASIER TO ATTACK OUR BELIEFS. I repeat again that there is not one prominent Calvinists who is teaching that a sinner cannot receive the gift of faith because “not one single impulse can come to pass within a human being’s brain unless Calvin’s God specifically decrees it.”
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god who meticulously determines every nano-second of man’s nature predestines every impulse.
roland
See my first comment.
br.d
Don’t you just love it when a Calvinist manufactures language designed to MASQUERADE a degree of human AUTONOMY which doesn’t exist in his system! Always trying to SMUGGLE back in – things their system EXCLUDES.
And never stopping to ask themselves why they have to do that!
roland
The Calvinist system doesn’t exclude that we free within the physical, intellectual, and cultural limits God imposed on humans. You are excluding because you love to BUILD a straw man so it makes it easier to attack, Leighton is really good as this, just following your leader.
br.d
Understanding Calvinism is easy
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a MASK of IN-Determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points!
roland
More straw man. Quote me one prominent Calvinist who defines Calvinism the way you define it. If you can’t, then you are also misrepresenting us. Calvinists are dishonest? 🤔
Roland: “Quote me one prominent Calvinist who says, ‘Calvinism is dishonest’ “
br.d
*AS-IF* hearing the gospel is going to make any difference – when not one single impulse can come to pass within a human being’s brain unless Calvin’s god specifically decrees it :-].
roland
Another straw man as you are misrepresenting what Calvinists believe
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they are merely instruments, into which god CONSTANTLY INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS AND CONVERTS to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
Calvinist Paul Helm’s
-quote
Not only EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE…..but EVERY TWIST AND TURN of each
of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
Looks like Roland is the one who is misrepresenting what Calvinists believe! :-]
br.d
*AS-IF* hearing the gospel is going to make any difference
roland
Here is your straw man, your misrepresentation and your error. You claim that according to Calvinism as you put it in your straw man that Calvinists believe hearing the gospel makes no difference.
I can quote you Calvinists, not straw man Calvinist like you build, but real Calvinist who believe the opposite. They believe hearing the Gospel makes all the difference as hearing comes by faith and hearing the word of God. The Calvinist commentaries that I have read on Romans 10 don’t say what you claim Calvinists believe.
br.d
*AS-IF* hearing the gospel is going to make any difference
roland
Here is your straw man, your misrepresentation
br.d
Here you remove the critical part of my statement – so that you can make my statement LOOK like what you want it to look.
And you do that to claim I make straw men!!!
That is totally hilarious!! 😀
roland
The Calvinist system doesn’t exclude that we free within the physical, intellectual, and cultural limits God imposed on humans. You are excluding because you love to BUILD a straw man so it makes it easier to attack, Leighton is really good as this, just following your leader.
br.d
Which misses the point totally – because the point is LANGUAGE designed to INFER a degree of AUTONOMY that is FALSE
If you believe there is no autonomy then be honest about it – and stop using language designed to mislead people
br.d
Understanding Calvinism is easy
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a MASK of IN-Determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points!
roland
More straw man. Quote me one prominent Calvinist who defines Calvinism the way you define it.
br.d
Quote me one prominent thief who defines himself as a thief :-]
br.d
Quote me one prominent thief who defines himself as a thief :-]
roland
I don’t know any prominent thief. But are saying that criminals deny that they are criminals all the time? You’ve never met anybody who has committed a crime, making them a criminal, then bragging about it, getting away it?
Come on br.d you are resorting to lunacy! Your compulsion to deny the autonomy and sovereignty of God and uphold the “autonomy” and “sovereignty” of man is causing you to resort to lunacy!
br.d
Quote me one prominent thief who defines himself as a thief :-]
roland
I don’t know any prominent thief.
br.d
So you require a test from me – which you yourself can’t meet
No hypocrisy there! :-]
roland
But are saying that criminals deny that they are criminals all the time?
br.d
The test you require of me is a quote from a prominent Calvinist
So now its time to see if you can meet your own demand.
roland
You’ve never met anybody who has committed a crime, making them a criminal, then bragging about it, getting away it?
br.d
Well first – according to your criteria – it has to be a prominent thief.
And that would be about as probable as a prominent Calvinist bragging that Calvin’s god is the author of evil.
Although we do have some Calvinists that have no problem bragging that.
But then you would argue that according to you that Calvinist does not meet your criteria of being a “Prominent” Calvinist.
Which means – you get the change the goal post however you like – in order to guarantee your test meets your desired outcome! :-]
But the simple answer which you should be adult enough to know – is that a thief telling people he is a thief is counter productive.
And that’s why prominent Calvinists don’t proclaim everything that LOGICALLY FOLLOWS with their believe system
So your test is designed to give you the outcome you want – which makes it bogus.
Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and the DECREES every impulse that will come to pass within in the human brain
And makes every impulse come to pass irresistibly.
And the Calvinist wants to call what Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and DECREES “the person’s plans”
I’m laughing out of my seat! ;-D
Roland says : “I repeat again that there is not one prominent Calvinists who is teaching that a sinner cannot receive the gift of faith…”
Just wondering: Do you, Roland, believe that the non-elect can receive the gift of faith?
Heather
Just wondering: Do you, Roland, believe that the non-elect can receive the gift of faith?
roland
Thanks for asking a question without sarcasm or ridicule or some kind of derogatory statement about my beliefs. I’ve been getting a lot of that lately, not trying to play the victim but it is definitely a change of tone, I truly appreciate it.
No, I don’t believe the non-elect can or will receive the gift of faith. Why do I believe this? Because in order for faith to be a gift it must be given. It is either given to ALL or its is only given to SOME. I believe God’s Word teaches us it is given to SOME because only some believe, not all. I believe true faith is saving faith, faith that endures to the end.
Hebrews 10:39
39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.
I believe the Bible teaches that man in his unregenerate state can believe or have faith in God, such as the demons who believe and tremble James 2:19 but demons are not saved. A non-elect individual could have non-saving faith in God but not saving faith or faith that leads to repentance and faith in Christ and endures until the end.
I would like to add that if a person believes that the gift of faith is given to all, then why do some believe and some do not believe?
What is the cause of them exercising their gift of faith so that they believe unto repentance and belief in Christ? Is it better insight into Christ’s offer of salvation? Is it wisdom? Something usually moves us or influences us to make choices.
Under libertarian freewill the argument is that the person makes the decision out of their LFW, God offers Christ, then waits for a decision.
In Calvinism as it is written in Romans 8, there is an “order of salvation.” There’s the elect that are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Thanks for reading.
Roland,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I’ve been busy. And thank you for your polite opening. I am sarcastic by nature, so I will try to refrain. 🙂
You said: A non-elect individual could have non-saving faith in God but not saving faith or faith that leads to repentance…
A Calvinist would have to say that ultimately God is the determining factor/cause in why the non-elect are not saved, right? It was His decision. His actions. But how does He ensure that the non-elect do not get saved? Is it just by not offering them the gift of faith? Or does He do something to their thinking/brains that keeps them from wanting to be saved?
Hi Heather,
If you don’t mind me putting in my 2 cents – it would be both.
Since the doctrine stipulates Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass
And since impulses in human brains constitute events which come to pass.
Then it logically follows – he meticulously determines every impulse in their brains
No decree equals no impulse
And since each impulse comes to pass infallibly – means it is impossible for the human mind to resist any impulse.
And also yes – on faith.
On Calvinism – faith is a concrete object which must be given to any individual.
And that again would simply be a package of impulses which again irresistibly come to pass within the brain.
The Calvinist will try to paint the picture that the determining factor is total depravity and Adam’s act of eating the fruit
The try to paint that picture – simply as a smoke screen to cover the fact Calvin’s god meticulous controls every nano-second and every movement of man.
Adam was given no alternative but to eat the fruit – exactly as Calvin’s god meticulously determined his brain to do so.
He was given no choice in the matter.
Ditto for every human being.
Heather asked, “But how does He ensure that the non-elect do not get saved?”
Paul explains, “If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…”
rhutchin
the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers
br.d
Which the god of this world world cannot possibly do – without Calvin’s god making every impulse come to pass within his brain.
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly…….can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he…….COMMANDS;…..they are…FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
men can deliberately do NOTHING unless he INSPIRE it.
No Calvinist has ever been able to explain why it is necessary for the god of this world to blind and harden those who are already totally blind, hardened spiritual corpses from birth.
Or why it was necessary for Jesus to speak in parables so that totally blind, non-comprehending spiritual corpses would not understand.
Pastor Loz writes, “No Calvinist has ever been able to explain why it is necessary for the god of this world to blind and harden those who are already totally blind, hardened spiritual corpses from birth.”
As 2 Corinthians 4 tells us it is “…to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…” People without faith are Totally Depraved – totally blind, hardened spiritual corpses from birth. The gospel is the means God uses to convey faith to people thus removing Total Depravity. Satan, the god of this world, as Peter is as describes, “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” The freedom of Satan is by God’s decree to blind the reprobate thereby preventing faith from being conveyed to people as people come under the preaching of the gospel. As Dr Flowers describes it, this may be for judicial hardening, but whatever the reason, it explains why two people can physically hear the gospel but only one ends up with faith.
Pastor Loz: “No Calvinist has ever been able to explain why it is necessary for the god of this world to blind and harden those who are already totally blind, hardened spiritual corpses from birth.”
/// R Hutchin: As 2 Corinthians 4 tells us it is “…to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…” ///
And thus you failed to answer it too. If they are ALREADY totally blind FROM BIRTH, born into that unchangeably pre-determined spiritual condition, as you believe, there is NO NEED to blind them FURTHER, in order to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel. A TOTALLY BLIND spiritual corpse WILL NOT SEE THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL as things already stand. They do not require any further hardening. They are already 100% blind. There is no such thing as 101% blind, 110% blind…
Pastor Loz writes, “there is NO NEED to blind them FURTHER, in order to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel.”
The gospel has the power to overcome the blindness of Total Depravity. Thus, 2 Corinthians says, “…to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…” If Satan does not blind a person, then the person will see the light of the gospel.
/// R Hutchin: The gospel has the power to overcome the blindness of Total Depravity.” ///
The ever moving goalposts of calvinism, episode 27
rhutchin\\
The gospel has the power to overcome the blindness of Total Depravity.
br.d
Here Calvin’s god makes things come to pass *AS-IF* he doesn’t
Calvinists dutifully follow John Calvin’s DOUBLE-MINDED instructions:
Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part
While the doctrine stipulates EVERYTHING is determined in EVERY part.
I’ll bet rhutchin knows the earth is flat – because it has a circumference! ;-D
rhutchin
As 2 Corinthians 4 tells us it is “…to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…”
br.d
CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
To keep them from seeing the light *AS-IF* they could possibly see any light – after Calvin’s god created them without eyes to see the light
rhutchin
People without faith are Totally Depraved – totally blind, hardened spiritual corpses from birth.
br.d
*AS-IF* the REAL problem isn’t that Calvin’s god AUTHORS every impulse that will come to pass within their brains! :-]
rhutchin
The gospel is the means God uses to convey faith to people
br.d
Actually an infallible decree is the means Calvin’s god uses to convey anything to anyone.
rhutchin
thus removing Total Depravity.
br.d
Removing SO-CALLED “Total” Depravity” which every Calvinist eventually has to acknowledge isn’t REALLY “Total” Depravity
And the way we know this is because a large percentage of the Calvinist population is infallibly decreed to be divinely deceived with a FALSE Election/Salvation.
rhutchin
Satan….“Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
br.d
With Calvin’s god as the AUTHOR of every impulse that comes to pass within his brain.
rhutchin
The freedom of Satan is by God’s decree
br.d
Where “freedom” is defined as having every impulse in your brain AUTHORED by Calvin’s god! :-]
rhutchin
to blind the reprobate thereby preventing faith from being conveyed to people
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god decreeing every nano-second of that person’s being wasn’t the REAL reason!
Calvinism is easy to understand
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a MASK of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points :-]
That is funny isn’t it!!!
Calvinism is so totally DOUBLE-MINDED!!
And the Calvinist brain is so totally cemented inside that cocoon of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS it has absolutely ZERO discernment!
The thinking patterns of the Calvinist brain is reduced to a very tiny library of DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points
And we know this is the case – because they repeat those talking-points over and over non-stop like a broken record.
Calvinism is a very serious form of mental entrenchment!
LOL!!!
Heather
A Calvinist would have to say that ultimately God is the determining factor/cause in why the non-elect are not saved, right? It was His decision. His actions.
roland
Yes, God is the determining factor/cause of why the non-elect are not saved. He never decreed them to be part of the elect, then they will not be part of the elect.
Heather
But how does He ensure that the non-elect do not get saved?
roland
The non-elect are not saved because God has not decreed for them to be saved. God works all things after the counsel of His own will, Ephesians 1:11. This includes the salvation of the elect. If God is not working for a person to be saved, they will never be saved. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where a “non-elect” person is saved. The elect are brought to salvation, the non-elect are never brought, if so, then they would be part of the elect.
Heather
Is it just by not offering them the gift of faith?
roland
I do believe that faith is a gift but I don’t believe that God offers it to all men. I don’t believe He offers it to any, it is given as a gift that Christ purchased on the Cross as all that is needed for the elect to be saved. It is part of the accomplishment of redemption by Christ for His elect.
Heather
Or does He do something to their thinking/brains that keeps them from wanting to be saved?
roland
I believe God does use means to accomplish His will. He can leave men alone as in passing them over. Romans 1:26 talks about God giving people up to their own passions and desires. He can allow for Satan to have his way with people. He can send a strong delusion as 2 Thessalonians 2:11. He can harden their hearts as the way He did with pharaoh. He can hide the truth from them as Jesus did in speaking parables. He does not have do something to their thinking or their brains because man doesn’t want to be saved. But those who do believe, as Jesus said, will not be cast out, John 6:37.
I don’t believe the Bible teaches us that every man wants to be saved and God has to intervene so that they will not be saved. It is the opposite. No one wants God, no one seeks after God, so in order for any person to be saved, God must intervene.
roland
The non-elect are not saved because God has not decreed for them to be saved.
br.d
Which is another way of saying – he does NOT PERMIT them to be saved.
That which is NOT Decreed would represent the CONTRA of that which the divine will PERMITS
And the CONTRA of that which is PERMITTED is thus LOGICALLY that which is NOT PERMITTED
Thus Adam was NOT PERMITTED to NOT eat the fruit.
And Cain was NOT PERMITTED to NOT kill his brother Able
Simply because those options were NOT decreed.
br.d
Which is another way of saying – he does NOT PERMIT them to be saved.
roland
Permission has nothing to do it with because mankind in natural unregenerate state does not even want to be saved. They have no desire as their desires are carnal, fleshly, and nobody in the flesh can please God. It is not that mankind is seeking after God, seeking to honor God, seeking to glorify God, and God does not permit them do so. God has not decreed all to be saved, if so, all would be saved.
It is like my children and video games. If I, as the sovereign over them, PERMITTED them to play video games all the day, they would. Why? Because they have strong desires, affections, and inclinations to play video games all day. Unregenerate mankind does not have strong desires, affections and/or inclinations to worship God. No need for permission from God.
roland
Permission has nothing to do it with because mankind in natural unregenerate state does not even want to be saved.
br.d
FALSE!
Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world before any man was created – specifically decreed what the state of nature (including every man’s nature) would be – at every nano-second in time.
Permission has EVERYTHING! to do with it
In Calvinism – what is CAUSED is what is PERMITTED
John Calvin explains:
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
John Calvin
FOR NO OTHER CAUSE but that he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.(Institutes)
The problem with Calvinists today – is they don’t like speaking the TRUTH
br.d
Thus Adam was NOT PERMITTED to NOT eat the fruit.
And Cain was NOT PERMITTED to NOT kill his brother Able
Simply because those options were NOT decreed
roland
You’re mistaken again because you begin with an anthropology that is not found in Scripture. You have a high view of man so you mistakenly attribute concepts to man that simply are not there according to Scripture.
It is not that Adam was not permitted to not eat the fruit, Scripture says he saw that the fruit was desirable, or rather Eve first, then Adam.Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,
Same for Cain, he wanted to kill Abel. He was angry and jealous.
Genesis 4:6-7
6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”
John writes in his epistle that Cain was of the evil one.
Same for any unregenerate person, they WANT to do these things. Under LFW it is assumed that man is good and man can make good choices.
roland
You’re mistaken again because you begin with an anthropology that is not found in Scripture
br.d
But it is found in Calvinism! :-]
And I provided the quotes from John Calvin for you.
But we totally understand why Calvinists need to evade the TRUTH – and white wash Calvinism
Roland
Same for any unregenerate person, they WANT to do these things.
br.d
And WHO makes them WANT to do these things!!
John Calvin explains
Hence they are merely INSTRUMENTS INTO WHICH god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and
TURNS and CONVERTS to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do NOTHING unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
See!
I told you Calvinists are always working to WHITE WASH Calvinism! :-]
Roland
It is not that Adam was not permitted to not eat the fruit….
br.d
AH! So by this you are acknowledging that Adam WAS NOT PERMITTED to NOT eat the fruit.
Otherwise you have the countervailing of an infallible decree being permitted
Which is obviously a rejection of Calvinism’s definition of divine sovereignty.
In Calvinism – only what is CAUSED is PERMITTED
John Calvin explains –
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
But in speaking of PERMISSION, I understand that he had appointed whatever he WISHED to be done. (Institutes)
CONCLUSION
What Calvin’s god WISHES = what Calvin’s god CAUSES = what Calvin’s god PERMITS.
br.d
John Calvin explains –
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage
(De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes)
roland
More RANDOM quotes from Calvin. I doubt you would or have read through the Institutes. If you have read through them then you should provide page numbers. But you’re probably just pulling quotes from someone else who has put in the work that you are unwilling to do. A RANDOM quote from Calvin doesn’t mean much without context.
roland
More RANDOM quotes from Calvin…..
br.d
Frustrated by John Calvin the father of Calvinism?
Perhaps you have a quote that totally contradicts the quotes I provided! :-]
roland
A RANDOM quote from Calvin doesn’t mean much without context.
br.d
John Calvin’s statements are so highly explicit they provide all the context one needs.
Any quote to the contrary would simply surface a contradiction.
The earth is flat.
Does that statement require any special context?
– Man is merely an instrument into which god constantly infuses what energy he sees meet and turns and converts to his good pleasure.
– If you are DOOMED to destruction by god there is no fighting it.
– The devil and the whole train of the ungodly – cannot even conceieve of anything – or lift a finger to perpetreate – unless he commands – nay they are FORCED to do him service
Explicit declarations Calvin so frequently and boldly asserted provide all the context one needs to understand! :-]
br.d
John Calvin’s statements are so highly explicit they provide all the context one needs.
roland
LOL!!! Tell that to Leighton Flowers when James White plays Leighton’s videos. First thing out of Leighton’s mouth, “James is taking me out of context. James didn’t play the whole 40 minute video.”
br.d
The earth is flat.
Does that statement require any special context?
roland
Yes. Almost any statement requires context. You can’t be serious? I could say, “Barack Obama is president of the United States. Barack Obama is not the president of the United States.” According to you, no context needed?
br.d
Explicit declarations Calvin so frequently and boldly asserted provide all the context one needs to understand! :-]
roland
I find it interesting that according to you when I quote Scripture it is RANDOM. However, when you quote Calvin, his statements are EXPLICIT DECLARATIONS that do not require context. 🤔 Hypocrisy?
Also, when I quote Scripture you often respond that it is my interpretation of Scripture not what Scripture says. According to your standard, it is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Calvin not what Calvin WROTE. You can’t have it both ways. Either Scripture says what it says or it requires an interpretation. Either Calvin says what he says or he requires an interpretation.
Let your YES be YES or your NAY be NAY!!!
I really doubt you have read Calvin’s Institutes it seems like you are a copy and paste provisionist. You have probably found a website that criticizes Calvin by quotes out of context, you copy the quote, and then paste it to soteriology101 in the comments section. If you have read and studied Calvin then you should be able to provide page numbers and the edition of the Institutes from which you read it from. If not just admit, you copy and paste. But you won’t admit as that would cause you to lose credibility.
br.d
The earth is flat.
Does that statement require any special context?
roland
Yes. Almost any statement requires context. You can’t be serious? I could say, “Barack Obama is president of the United States. Barack Obama is not the president of the United States.” According to you, no context needed?
br.d
Totally silly!!
If you said ““Barack Obama is president of the United States.”
That needs no context
If you said he is and is not – then that is a contradiction.
Should I be surprised – you don’t know what a contradiction is? :-]
br.d
Explicit declarations Calvin so frequently and boldly asserted provide all the context one needs to understand! :-]
roland
I find it interesting that according to you when I quote Scripture it is RANDOM.
br.d
What I am pointing to there is – the verse quoted has nothing at all to do with the subject matter.
For example some one is asked about salvation – and a person answers “And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:”
Calling a verse quote RANDOM has to do with a verse that a Calvinist is simply using to pull a rabbit out of his hat.
Calvinist FORCE verses to mean things the author could not have possibly intended
The next time Brian is here – ask him how often he finds Calvinists doing that.
Roland
However, when you quote Calvin, his statements are EXPLICIT DECLARATIONS that do not require context. 🤔 Hypocrisy?
br.d
As I said “The earth is flat” needs no context to be understood as a declaration
Declarations of divine meticulous control over humans – and even deceiving Calvinists with FALSE salvation/election – come part and parcel with Calvin.
Roland
Also, when I quote Scripture you often respond that it is my interpretation of Scripture not what Scripture says.
br.d
How can it be NOT what scripture says – when you are quoting scripture???
How in the world does that make sense to you????
When a Jehovah’s witness quotes a scripture to prove Jehovah witness doctrine – you should be smart enough to know his interpretation is the issue – not what scripture says.
But you don’t appear to know the difference.
Roland
According to your standard, it is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Calvin not what Calvin WROTE. You can’t have it both ways. Either Scripture says what it says or it requires an interpretation. Either Calvin says what he says or he requires an interpretation.
br.d
That’s why I invited you to find a quote from him that contradicts the quotes I provide!
I have plenty of other quotes from Calvin saying the same exact things
So that should keep you busy for quite a while – trying to argue Calvin doesn’t say what he says :-]
roland
Let your YES be YES or your NAY be NAY!!!
br.d
Absolutely!!!
roland
I really doubt you have read Calvin’s Institutes
br.d
I’ve read enough of it to know exactly what Calvin believes
roland
it seems like you are a copy and paste provisionist.
br.d
You think I’m a provisionist!
That’s interesting!!
roland
You have probably found a website that criticizes Calvin by quotes out of context, you copy the quote, and then paste it to soteriology101 in the comments section.
br.d
I get Calvin’s quotes from Calvinist sources.
The Ethereal Library is one resource
Have my own copy of the Institutes of Calvin’s DOUBLE-THINK – and probably a few more.
Whenever I can get a free copy of one of his writings – I grab it.
Some really juicy statements will be found where Calvin’s god INFUSES people with energy and TURNS and CONVERTS them to his good pleasure.
roland
If you have read and studied Calvin then you should be able to provide page numbers and the edition
br.d
That’s a good point!
I do provide chapter and verse in most of the quotes.
I suppose I could dig up the chapter and verse for all of them.
However study the writings of John Calvin????
That would be as edifying as studying the writings of the reverend Jim Jones
roland
If not just admit, you copy and paste. But you won’t admit as that would cause you to lose credibility.
br.d
Nah!
I’ve shown so far that I know way more about TRUE Calvinism than you do.
The difference between you and me is you white wash Calvinism and I don’t – and you don’t like that.
And one more point Roland
The quotes I provide from Calvin – all Calvinists for that matter – are all LOGICALLY COHERENT with Exhaustive Divine Determinism
Take for example Calvin’s quote about Calvin’s god INFUSING ENERGY into people and TURNING and CONVERTING them to whatever he pleases.
That statement is LOGICALLY COHERENT with the foundational core of Calvinism – Exhaustive Divine Determinism
The THEOS at the foundation of the world – determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
That would LOGICALLY have to include all impulses that come to pass within human brains.
All academic Calvinists acknowledge Calvinism’s form of “freedom” is COMPATIBLISM
Thus my recent post on that was LOGICALLY COHERENT with the foundational core of the doctrine.
You for example argue that in Calvinism you are permitted to make choices
And that is in fact a DENIAL of the foundational core of the doctrine.
In order for you to have a choice – you would have to have at least 2 options [A] and [NOT A]
And in Calvinism it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to RENDER-CERTAIN both [A] and [NOT A] because one cancels the other.
Calvin’s god would be creating a decree that defeats itself – which is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
You don’t like the LOGICAL implications of the doctrine.
So you create representations which are more “Arminius” than they are Calvin.
br.d
The earth is flat.
Does that statement require any special context?
roland
Yes!!! Why did the person say it? Who said it? When did they say it? Think about you: why did you write it? Did you write it express your belief that the earth is flat? Did you write it to prove to me that statements do not require context? All these types of questions are important. They provide context.
br.d
Totally silly!!
If you said ““Barack Obama is president of the United States.”
That needs no context
If you said he is and is not – then that is a contradiction.
Should I be surprised – you don’t know what a contradiction is? :-]
roland
I did provide a contradiction however if I added some dates to the statements then I no longer have a contradiction. Example, “In the year 2000, Barack Obama is not the president of the United States. Barack Obama is the president in the United States in 2010.”
By providing a historical context my contradiction becomes a true statement.
br.d
What I am pointing to there is – the verse quoted has nothing at all to do with the subject matter.
For example some one is asked about salvation – and a person answers “And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:”
roland
When have I ever quoted a Bible verse that was completely irrelevant?
br.d
How can it be NOT what scripture says – when you are quoting scripture???
How in the world does that make sense to you????
roland
You do this all the time I quote Scripture. Your response is always that me quoting Scripture is just my interpretation of it!!!
br.d
But you don’t appear to know the difference.
roland
You’re so right, you know me so well. How could I know not the difference? Thanks for pointing that out to me.
br.d
That’s why I invited you to find a quote from him that contradicts the quotes I provide!
I have plenty of other quotes from Calvin saying the same exact things
So that should keep you busy for quite a while – trying to argue Calvin doesn’t say what he says :-]
roland
Like you trying to argue that Scripture doesn’t say what it says.
br.d
Nah!
I’ve shown so far that I know way more about TRUE Calvinism than you do.
The difference between you and me is you white wash Calvinism and I don’t – and you don’t like that.
roland
You know YOUR version of Calvinism just like Jehovah’s Witnesses know THEIR version of God!
The trouble is Roland, that your god has meticulously predetermined at least 9 versions of Calvinis, and that you are unable to get your story straight between you. I’m sure that brings him a lot of glory.
Pastor Loz
The trouble is Roland, that your god has meticulously predetermined at least 9 versions of Calvinis, and that you are unable to get your story straight between you. I’m sure that brings him a lot of glory.
roland
Do you believe to have some variety of thought within a particular strain of belief makes everyone in that strain wrong? There are many versions of Christianity, are all Christians then wrong because we can’t get our story straight?
That sounds like what you are saying. Because they are different versions of Calvinism, which you haven’t shown, then all Calvinists are wrong.
I am saying that your god couldn’t make up his mind which version to meticulously predetermine. Calvinism is like a dragon with many heads. You cut off one head, and the other heads say, “that’s not Calvinism!”. It’s a very convenient confusion. Non Calvinist s don’t have that issue since they don’t believe God predetermined everything they believe
roland
Do you believe to have some variety of thought within a particular strain of belief makes everyone in that strain wrong?
br.d
It becomes very entertaining to watch – when Calvin’s god decrees Calvinist_A to declare Calvinism is [X] and Calvinist_B to declare Calvinism is [NOT X]
And decree Calvinist_A to say that Calvinist_B is wrong.
And decree Calvinist_B to say that Calvinist _A is wrong.
And decree Calvinist_A to insist that his Calvinism is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong
And decree Calvinist_B to insist that his Calvinism is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong
And to decree roland to insist his version of Calvinism is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong
And to decree roland to insist that when he contradicts another Calvinist – that is not really a contradiction – but they both actually agree
while one says [X] and the other says [NOT X]
Calvinists infallibly decreed to have so many FALSE PERCEPTIONS with no discernment of it.
All very entertaining! :-]
roland
Yes!!! Why did the person say it?
br.d
Nah!
You’re just being stubborn
Here is an example from an academic sourse:
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – in its article on Theological Determinism writes this concerning the language used by Calvinist Paul Helm:
-quote
“Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says “God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’” (1993, p. 39).
The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.” -end quote
There is an academic example of using a quote.
And that example follows the vast majority of academic quotations.
roland
I did provide a contradiction however
br.d
well you say that now because I pointed it out to you- which makes your example silly.
roland
if I added some dates to the statements then I no longer have a contradiction. Example, “In the year 2000, Barack Obama is not the president of the United States. Barack Obama is the president in the United States in 2010.”
By providing a historical context my contradiction becomes a true statement.
br.d
Now we understand you don’t know what context means
What you did here is simply make 2 declarative statements
1) In the year 2000, Barack Obama is not the president of the United States.
2) Barack Obama is the president in the United States in 2010
Sorry roland
Your first example was a contradiction
And your second example is not context at all
roland
When have I ever quoted a Bible verse that was completely irrelevant?
br.d
Heather asks you a specific question and you provide a verse that addresses something other than the question.
Both you and rhutchin did the same thing
Both of you gave NON-answers to her question.
roland
You do this all the time I quote Scripture. Your response is always that me quoting Scripture is just my interpretation of it!!!
br.d
Which is what Jesus does with the lawyer who tempted him! :-]
br.d
And concerning what scripture says and Calvinism’s interpretation of it – you don’t appear to know the difference.
roland
You’re so right, you know me so well. How could I know not the difference? Thanks for pointing that out to me.
br.d
Your’re welcome!
But there is a possibility you do know the difference – but your ignoring the difference as a strategy you think will give you an advantage.
But since I see through it either way – it doesn’t
roland
Like you trying to argue that Scripture doesn’t say what it says.
br.d
I’m not a Calvinist – so I don’t play that game with scripture or with other Calvinists or with John Calvin.
But I’ve had Calvinists play it.
roland
You know YOUR version of Calvinism just like Jehovah’s Witnesses know THEIR version of God!
br.d
I have no need to white wash Calvinism – or obfuscate aspects of it – which I know both Calvinist and non-Calvinist will find unpalatable..
Calvinists have that need – because they have a strong urgency make Calvinism *APPEAR* desirable.
Its a marketing urgency
br.d
Now we understand you don’t know what context means
What you did here is simply make 2 declarative statements
1) In the year 2000, Barack Obama is not the president of the United States.
2) Barack Obama is the president in the United States in 2010
Sorry roland
Your first example was a contradiction
And your second example is not context at all
roland
I took this example from The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy by Steve Cowan and James Speigel. I had to use it for a Christian apologetics class I took for my undergraduate degree. So according to you Cowan and Speigel don’t know what a contradiction is and they don’t know what context is!!!
I’d like to see that article
Can you provide a link?
And did you notice the example I provided – provided from Paul Helm’s nothing more than one declarative statement.
Nothing more.
br.d
I’d like to see that article
Can you provide a link?
roland
I didn’t cite an article.
amazon here’s the link to the book, page 18 if this is what you were referring to.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805447709?pf_rd_r=TGEFCVTEJCTMF0A4244T&pf_rd_p=5ae2c7f8-e0c6-4f35-9071-dc3240e894a8&pd_rd_r=fba81d9e-6e3e-4c9c-aeb6-fa1934f110cb&pd_rd_w=yQDti&pd_rd_wg=oCyf5&ref_=pd_gw_unk
The link didn’t come through – what’s the name of the book again?
The link didn’t come through – what’s the name of the book again?
roland
The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy by Steve Cowan and James Spiegel. You can find it on Amazon and on page 18 is the example I used about Barack Obama. Section 1.1.1 Laws of Thought.
Thanks
I just bought a copy.
I’ll check where you referenced
But you can see from the example I provided from the online encyclopedia
Only one statement from Paul Helm’s was given
And that is typically what you will find in all academic quotations
br.d
But you can see from the example I provided from the online encyclopedia
Only one statement from Paul Helm’s was given
And that is typically what you will find in all academic quotations
roland
I have a master’s degree and there’s no way one of my professors would have accepted a citation with just a quote. I had to provide in the citation a title, the author, year of publication, if the title was different editions, the edition I was citing from and a page number or the weblink if I’m citing from a website. One quote is not academic citation.
roland
One quote is not academic citation.
br.d
Now you’re just playing word games
One quote within an academic article – one quote within an academic article
And nothing other than that one quote was felt necessary by that academic article.
And that I can find many more examples just like that one. :-]
br.d
I have no need to white wash Calvinism – or obfuscate aspects of it – which I know both Calvinist and non-Calvinist will find unpalatable..
Calvinists have that need – because they have a strong urgency make Calvinism *APPEAR* desirable.
Its a marketing urgency
roland
If a non-christian presents to you aspects of God, Christianity, or the Bible that someone finds unpalatable, and you don’t present those unpalatable aspects, who is being more honest? It sounds like you are saying that in order for a person to be honest, they must present the unpalatable aspects, characteristics, etc.
So when I introduce myself or my family to someone, if I don’t present the unpalatable aspects about myself or my family, then I am being dishonest. I’ve never met anybody who has introduced their kids as they really are. I’ve never met anybody who says, “Here’s my son Johnny, he’s really disobedient, he never does his homework, all he wants to do is play video games all day, etc.” So I’ve never met an honest person according to you.
roland
If a non-christian presents to you aspects of God, Christianity, or the Bible that someone finds unpalatable, and you don’t present those unpalatable aspects, who is being more honest?
br.d
I look at that using the model of a witness on a witness stand
The reason they require him to “Tell the truth – the whole truth – and nothing but the truth” is because he could tell LITTLE truths postured as the WHOLE truth – while HIDING critical truth which would provide the FULL picture.
Calvinists don’t like answering yes/not true/false questions because they are taught to word-smith their way around unpalatable truths.
They learn to provide LITTLE truths – postured as the WHOLE truth – while HIDING critical truth – which would provide the FULL picture.
roland
It sounds like you are saying that in order for a person to be honest, they must present the unpalatable aspects, characteristics, etc.
br.d
Its called full disclosure.
And there are reasons why people avoid it.
roland
So when I introduce myself or my family to someone, if I don’t present the unpalatable aspects about myself or my family, then I am being dishonest.
br.d
It all hinges on what your communications are postured to represent.
If you are answering someone’s question – and you are posturing yourself as providing an honest answer – then you won’t hide or obfuscate information. People are not going to ask you personal questions about unpalatable truths concerning yourself – unless perhaps they are investigating a crime.
If you do hide or obfuscate information – while posturing as providing the definitive answer – people eventually learn you’re testimony is not trustworthy.
You will see this pattern with the “whose-who” of Bible scholars.
There are scholars who are not very scholarly – because they simply paint a biased picture they want people to see – while withholding additional information people could use to make an informed decision.
The most respected scholars explain the matter from the various countering theologies or interpretations.
F.F. Bruce for example – was noted as one of the top 10 scholars of the 20th century because he never attempted to paint a biased picture of the subject mater. He outlined the positions of all opposing parties and did not withhold any information.
Calvinists don’t do that because there are things about the doctrine they don’t find palatable
And they know outsiders will also not find those things palatable
For example – the fact that the Calvinist has no CERTAINTY of whether or not Calvin’s god designed him for eternal torment in the lake of fire. You won’t find any Calvinists today acknowledging that.
But Calvin had no problems acknowledging it.
You won’t find Calvinists declaring “The infallible decree produces a sense of horror in me”
But John Calvin didn’t have any problem saying it.
So Roland, why don’t you explain to us SPECIFICALLY how each of the Calvin quotes Br D provided mean something DIFFERENT “in context”, to the plain, explicit meaning they appear to have to us as written? Or is it easier just to handwave them away with a generalized, unsubstantiated assertion, like you have? Not going to hold my breath on this one
Roland also never provided a personal example of a choice he perceived himself the determiner of
He won’t to to that because he knows under scrutiny it will become obvious that the perception of being the determiner of a choice for a Calvinist – is a FALSE PERCEPTION.
And of course – per the doctrine – the only way that FALSE PERCEPTION could come to pass is that Calvin’s god determined it to be the Calvinists perception.
And that will lead to the question of – what percentage of the perceptions that Calvin’s god determines come to pass within the Calvinist brain are FALSE PERCEPTIONS.
And that will lead to the understanding that per the doctrine – the Calvinist brain is NOT PERMITTED to discern a TRUE PERCEPTION from a FALSE PERCEPTION.
And that will lead to the understanding that the Calvinist brain is NOT PERMITTED to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Calvinists have at least a tiny glimpse of those LOGICAL implications.
And those implications terrify them
And that’s why they avoid answering such questions.
br.d
Roland also never provided a personal example of a choice he perceived himself the determiner of
roland
How many times are you going to roll this ball up the same hill Sisyphus? I thought we settled this long ago that I am not determiner of any of my thoughts. Or am I wrong. I thought I answered this.
If you are not the determiner of “your” thoughts, then they are not your thoughts. You are just a receptacle.
Pastor Loz
If you are not the determiner of “your” thoughts, then they are not your thoughts. You are just a receptacle.
roland
Exactly! That’s what br.d has logically proven to me several times. I am not the determiner of my thoughts. So if these are not my thoughts I am expressing to you, if these are not roland’s thoughts, then who’s are they?
In your philosophical theory they are your god’s thoughts. Just as every typo you make proves your god can’t spell. And when Christians argue about doctrine, it’s actually your god arguing with himself. Very gloriously of course.
roland
if these are not roland’s thoughts, then who’s are they?
br.d
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin answers that question in a heart beat
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”
(The Doctrine of Divine Decree)
br.d
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin answers that question in a heart beat
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”
(The Doctrine of Divine Decree)
roland
Never heard of Robert R. McLaughlin. I briefly read through the Doctrine of the Divine Decree. I would generally agree with most of what he wrote but I would have to spend more time reading to come to a better conclusion. He does believe that men have freewill.
“The answer is that the Divine Decree exerts no force or influence upon the will and volition of mankind, and while it ensures the future of events, it leaves them to be accomplished in the exercise of our liberty. While the Decree determines that some things should be brought to pass necessarily, it also determines that other things should be brought to pass freely.” McLaughlin
I would agree with this statement.
roland
Never heard of Robert R. McLaughlin.
br.d
He’s a Calvinist – that’s all that matters
In his mind his representation of Calvinism is the TRUE representation.
He doesn’t think of you as the grand authority over all Calvinists of what TRUE Calvinism is.
roland
I briefly read through the Doctrine of the Divine Decree. I would generally agree with most of what he wrote but I would have to spend more time reading to come to a better conclusion.
br.d
If you disagree with him – we simply have two Calvinists who disagree with each other
You both can’t be right – so one of you must be wrong.
roland
He does believe that men have freewill.
br.d
There is that nebulous “free” will again – which Calvinists often like make *APPEAR* as Libertarian as possible :-]
In Calvinism – your will is “free” to do what exactly?
roland
“The answer is that the Divine Decree exerts no force or influence upon the will and volition of mankind,
br.d
Not quite!
FIRSTLY:
The “no force” argument is a philosophical argument which Calvinists borrow from Atheist Determinists
You have no way of proving Calvin’s god does not use force
SECONDLY:
Here are quotes from John Calvin on the topic of divine force
-quote
Since God’s will is said to be the CAUSE of all things, I have made this providence the determinative
principle for all human plans and works, not only in order to display its FORCE in the elect……
but also to COMPEL the reprobate to obedience. – (Institutes)
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He permits, nay, unless in so far as He COMMANDS; that they are not only bound by His fetters but are even FORCED to do Him service.” Institutes I, 17, 11.
So Calvin is obviously not familiar with current day Calvinist use of Atheist Determinist arguments! :-]
Roland
and while it ensures the future of events, it leaves them to be accomplished in the exercise of our liberty.
br.d
WHOOOO “our liberty”?????
In Calvinism you have the liberty to falsify an infallible decree?
I don’t think so!
The “freedom” you have – is COMPATIBILISM
Which means “freedom” MUST be COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Thus
1) You are “Free” to be/do what Calvin’s god determines – because that is COMPATIBLE with what is determined
2) You are NOT “Free” to be/do otherwise – because that “Freedom” is NOT COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
roland
While the Decree determines that some things should be brought to pass necessarily, it also determines that other things should be brought to pass freely.” McLaughlin
br.d
Sure you do!
But again – that “freedom” MUST be COMPATIBLE with what is determined
You are NOT FREE to falsify an infallible decree.
Therefore you are NOT FREE to be/do anything other than what is determined.
SECONDLY:
1) Calvin’s god must PERMIT what he infallibly decrees – because if he doesn’t – then he is a house divided against itself.
2) Calvin’s god must grant “Freedom” for that which he infallibly decrees – because of he doesn’t – he is a house divided against itself.
But
Any alternative from that which is infallibly decreed – is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE – because it would falsify the infallible decree
Therefore
1) Adam was “Free” to eat the fruit – because eating the fruit is COMPATIBLE with what was determined
2) Adam was NOT “Free” to NOT eat the fruit – because NOT eating the fruit would falsify the infallible decree – and would NOT be COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
Therefore on Calvinism – Adam was NOT “free” to NOT eat the fruit
br.d
Roland also never provided a personal example of a choice he perceived himself the determiner of
roland
How many times are you going to roll this ball up the same hill Sisyphus? I thought we settled this long ago that I am not determiner of any of my thoughts. Or am I wrong. I thought I answered this.
br.d
Why didn’t you simply say:
In Calvinism all created things (including humans) have absolutely no choice in the matter of anything because in Calvinism creatures are NOT PERMITTED the function of choice. .
Here is your opportunity
Go ahead and say it
br.d
Why didn’t you simply say:
In Calvinism all created things (including humans) have absolutely no choice in the matter of anything because in Calvinism creatures are NOT PERMITTED the function of choice. .
Here is your opportunity
Go ahead and say it
roland
Because that’s not what Calvinism teaches or believes. Calvinists do believe we make choices, we determine things but we are not the ultimate determiner of anything. Because you misunderstand Calvinism you will continue to make this argument. The way you state it is not the way Calvinists state it. You can show quotes that are similar to what you wrote and I can show you quotes that show that Calvinists believe we make choices.
Would you like to have this back and forth?
br.d
Why didn’t you simply say:
In Calvinism all created things (including humans) have absolutely no choice in the matter of anything because in Calvinism creatures are NOT PERMITTED the function of choice. .
Here is your opportunity
Go ahead and say it
roland
Because that’s not what Calvinism teaches or believes.
br.d
Because it is an unpalatable TRUTH which Calvinism refuses to acknowledge
HOWEVER – YOU ARE VERY CLOSE!
FIRSTLY
1) You declared you are NOT the DETERMINER of your thoughts – which is TRUE in Calvinism
2) The function of choice is a byproduct of and therefore requires the function of thought
3) Since you are NOT the DETERMINER of any thought that comes to pass within your brain – it follows you are not the DETERMINER of any choice.
SECONDLY:
4) In Calvinism – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is solely and exclusively DETERMINED by Calvin’s god alone.
And that includes all choice
5) The function of choice – requires at least 2 options [A] and [NOT A] which both exist as available from which to choose
6) It is LOGICALLY impossible for Calvin’s god to RENDER-CERTAIN both [A] and [NOT A] at the same time.
Only one of these can be RENDERED-CERTAIN to exist – and made available to you.
7) Therefore since you have no option(s) (plural) available to you – it LOGICALLY follows – the function of choice is not available to you.
THIRDLY:
8) Calvin’s god is the only one in the universe who has the function of choice
He exercises choice as a part of his sovereignty – which he does not grant to mankind
The reason Calvinists don’t teach it – is because it is unpalatable.
br.d
The reason Calvinists don’t teach it – is because it is unpalatable.
roland
The reason Calvinists don’t teach this is because the Bible doesn’t present it this way. Our doctrine of God’s decree is derived from Scripture. I’ve pointed out to you various Scriptures that show God determines things that come to pass yet man is also acting along with God’s determinations. Peter’s prayer in
Acts 4:27 “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.
This verse here teaches us that God determined that these men would kill Jesus before hand yet they still did it out of their own freewill. Isaiah 10 as well is another recorded instance of God’s sovereignty over man and man’s freewill. That’s unpalatable to you and all non-calvinists because you have a presumed that man has libertarian freewill, God exercising His sovereignty over man is unpalatable to you, the idea of divine sovereignty as taught in Scripture is unpalatable to ALL MEN because since Adam we have all wanted to be like God, free and autonomous. But we are not. Jesus told Pontius Pilate that Pilate could have no power except from above.
John 19:11
11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
Under a libertarian freewill point of view, Jesus is wrong because if LFW is true, then any power to choose belongs to Pilate and Pilate only, there can be nothing influencing Pilate, he has the option to crucify Jesus or not crucify Jesus, and Pilate is the source of his decision.
Here’ more of God’s sovereignty
Proverbs 21:1
The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
Again, under LFW God cannot do this, He cannot turn the king’s heart wherever He wishes. The king gets to decide which way his heart will turn if LFW is true. The king has the option to turn this way or not turn this way, the king is the source of his decision, and there is nothing influencing the king in his decision.
Calvinists teach what the Bible teaches. We do not seek to make the God of the Bible palatable to unregenerate men, we seek to proclaim God in His fullness as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.
/// Roland God exercising His sovereignty over man is unpalatable to you ///
Bull. Speak for yourself.
roland
The reason Calvinists don’t teach this is because the Bible doesn’t present it this way.
br.d
That’s because Gnostic/NeoPlatonist Exhaustive Divine Determinism is not affirmed by the Bible :-]
br.d
That’s because Gnostic/NeoPlatonist Exhaustive Divine Determinism is not affirmed by the Bible :-]
roland
Just like Roman Catholic Jesuit Philosophy of Molinism is not affirmed by the Bible either:]
roland
Just like Roman Catholic Jesuit Philosophy of Molinism is not affirmed by the Bible either:]
br.d
So I pointed to something that LOGICALLY follows with Calvinism – that you declare is not in the narrate of scripture
Now in order for your assertion that Molinism is not affirmed by the Bible – you are required to do the same
What LOGICALLY follows in Molinism that is not affirmed by scripture?
And don’t say Middle-Knowledge – because Pastor Loz and I already blew that one out of the water for you – providing verses that show divine Middle knowledge
br.d
What LOGICALLY follows in Molinism that is not affirmed by scripture?
roland
I already blew this one out of the water as well.
br.d
What LOGICALLY follows in Molinism that is not affirmed by scripture?
roland
I already blew this one out of the water as well.
br.d
Not that I’m aware
If you REALLY can – blow it out of the water LOGICALLY – then please – do
I’m all ears!! :-]
roland
Again, under LFW God cannot do this, He cannot turn the king’s heart wherever He wishes.
br.d
WHAT????
You have it exactly backwords.
Calvin’s god has
1) The ability to choose from a range of options – those options existing and thus available for himself to choose.
For example – he can choose to create the world in 5 days or 7 days.
2) His decisions are not determined by an external mind – or by factors outside of his control.
Both of those attributes (1-2) above are attributes of LFW which are MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Determinism.
Therefore Calvin’s god has LFW
BTW: There was a recent video by James White arguing the Calvin’s god has LFW
Dr. Flowers addressed it.
Your problem – is that you are not very much up to speed on such those things within reformed thinking.
br.d
WHAT????
You have it exactly backwords.
roland
You obviously misunderstood the Scripture I quoted and what I am saying. I never wrote that God does not have libertarian freewill!. The Bible teaches us that man, in the verse I quoted the king, does not have libertarian freewill. However proponents of libertarian freewill would not agree with this verse because under libertarian freewill philosophy the king’s heart is free to choose to turn or not turn, it can’t be both in God’s hands and be determined by God and have libertarian freewill at the same due to the definition of libertarian freewill. You misunderstood what I wrote.
I quit watching Leighton Flowers videos, I can’t believe he has a ph.d in theology and he did his dissertation on Calvinism and say the things he says about Calvinists and Calvinism. Also, I can’t stand his hypocrisy. He loves complaining about James White editing Leighton’s videos to look a certain way and Leighton does the exact same thing. His videos are just analogy and story time and prop time as I saw a video in my youtube feed with Leighton holding four cups! I’m tempted to watch this as I’m curious as to what silliness ol’ Leighton is up to now. I’m always wondering when he’ll turn to Scripture one day to prove provisionism but all I see and hear are analogies (you know cops doing an undercover bust job) and story time, and now prop time!!!
roland
You obviously misunderstood the Scripture I quoted and what I am saying. I never wrote that God does not have libertarian freewill!. The Bible teaches us that man, in the verse I quoted the king, does not have libertarian freewill.
br.d
Can you show that to be the case LOGICALLY?
Otherwise – your must making a claim.
Who was the king spoken of in Prov 21? Solomon. Writing about himself. When he was still submitted to God. Of the Calvinist god turned his heart away from him, to follow the pagan gods of his wives. The Calvinist god loves to be hated. Looks like he gave Solomon a dose of evanescent grace.
Pastor Loz
Who was the king spoken of in Prov 21? Solomon. Writing about himself. When he was still submitted to God.
roland
This is called eisegesis, reading something into the text that is not there. The text does not say “The king Solomon…” nor does it say, “the king was submitted to God.” You are doing what I know a lot of non-calvinists do when expositing Scripture. They read their own ideas and concepts into the text so that it aligns with their non-biblical ideas such as libertarian freewill.
The text simply says “the king’s heart.” This does not identify any specific king, so I would conclude that it includes all kings in all places at all times. I would also add that this interpretation is in harmony with other Scripture such as
Revelation 17:17
17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.
The hearts of all kings, good or bad, are in the Lord’s hand, he turns them wherever He pleases. Other Scriptures are in harmony as well such as king Cyrus and Nebuchadezznar in the book of Daniel. God did as he pleased with any king.
Pastor Loz: Who was the king spoken of in Prov 21? Solomon. Writing about himself. When he was still submitted to God.
/// roland This is called eisegesis, reading something into the text that is not there. The text does not say “The king Solomon…” nor does it say, “the king was submitted to God.” You are doing what I know a lot of non-calvinists do when expositing Scripture. They read their own ideas and concepts into the text so that it aligns with their non-biblical ideas such as libertarian freewill. The text simply says “the king’s heart.” This does not identify any specific king, so I would conclude that it includes all kings in all places at all times. ///
How ironic that you accuse someone else of eisgesis, when that is precisely what you yourself are doing – reading something into the text that is not there. You act as if the text reads, “the hearts of ALL kings”. In fact you want it to read “the hearts of all people everywhere”. It doesn’t. You made an unwarranted generalisation. It says THE King. Singular. If you were aware of the historical context, you would know that it was standard practice for the king of that time and place to refer to themself in the third person like this.
/// roland I would also add that this interpretation is in harmony with other Scripture such as Revelation 17:17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. ///
Except that putting something into a person’s heart is not the same as unchangeably steering every thought, every emotion, every desire, every intention and every decision they make. You already know that, but we know that won’t stop you or other calvinists from equivocating in this way to suit your purposes. You read your own ideas and concepts into the text so that it aligns with your non-biblical ideas of theistic fatalism (yes we know calvinists aren’t honest enough to call it that so don’t ask for quotes).
Pastor Loz
How ironic that you accuse someone else of eisgesis, when that is precisely what you yourself are doing – reading something into the text that is not there. You act as if the text reads, “the hearts of ALL kings”. In fact you want it to read “the hearts of all people everywhere”. It doesn’t. You made an unwarranted generalisation.
roland
Straw man argument. I’ve never wrote any of the things you said I wrote. You built my argument up to say something I did not say, then tore it down.
Pastor Loz
Except that putting something into a person’s heart is not the same as unchangeably steering every thought, every emotion, every desire, every intention and every decision they make.
roland
You should read your Bible more and get to know it better. Solomon disagrees with you as he wrote that out of the heart springs the issues of life. I would say that our thoughts, our emotions, our desires, our intentions, and our decisions all spring from the heart. So, yes to put something into somebody’s heart is to deal with the issues of life. When God puts something into somebody’s heart, that’s exactly what He is doing, steering their thoughts, emotions, desires, intentions, and decisions.
Proverbs 4:23
23 Keep your heart with all diligence,
For out of it spring the issues of life.
Nice tap dance roland!
BTW
I have a math question for you
What do you get when you add [A+] with [A-] together?
br.d
Nice tap dance roland!
roland
What tap dance?
Math with unknown variables is outside of my pay grade, sorry! Give me something easier like -1 + 1 = ? I can do that.
br.d
What do you get when you add [A+] with [A-] together?
roland
Math with unknown variables is outside of my pay grade,
sorry! Give me something easier like -1 + 1 = ? I can do that.
br.d
Its introductory Algebra
Values are labeled and are often unknown
For example if we have 10 minus [X] = 6
And we want to derive the value of [X] – we simply subtract 6 from 10
[X] must therefore be 4
And in this case we have a positive value and a negative value.
We can say this in another way:
Lets say [A+] equals the value of positive 5
And [A-] equals the value of negative 5
What do you get when you add [A+] with [A-]?
Pastor Loz:How ironic that you accuse someone else of eisgesis, when that is precisely what you yourself are doing – reading something into the text that is not there. You act as if the text reads, “the hearts of ALL kings”. In fact you want it to read “the hearts of all people everywhere”. It doesn’t. You made an unwarranted generalisation.
/// roland: Straw man argument. I’ve never wrote any of the things you said I wrote. You built my argument up to say something I did not say, then tore it down. ///
Hold on. Are you now saying you DON’T believe God turns the hearts of all kings and all people? You need to make up your mind what you are actually saying, and stop constantly moving the goalposts in true calvinist style when you are challenged. Which is it Roland? Does God turn the hearts of all kings and people or doesn’t He?
Pastor Loz: Except that putting something into a person’s heart is not the same as unchangeably steering every thought, every emotion, every desire, every intention and every decision they make.
/// roland: You should read your Bible more and get to know it better. Solomon disagrees with you as he wrote that out of the heart springs the issues of life. I would say that our thoughts, our emotions, our desires, our intentions, and our decisions all spring from the heart. So, yes to put something into somebody’s heart is to deal with the issues of life. When God puts something into somebody’s heart, that’s exactly what He is doing, steering their thoughts, emotions, desires, intentions, and decisions.
Proverbs 4:23 23 Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it spring the issues of life. ///
Looks like you need to take your own advice. Prov 4:23-24 makes no sense in your mythology, because it is assigning PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to the audience to keep, guard, watch over their own hearts. They can’t do that in calvinism, because your god inserts his own thoughts into their hearts regardless. Again, make up your mind what you believe, if your god will let you.
Pastor Loz
Does God turn the hearts of all kings and people or doesn’t He?
roland
I said all kings but I never wrote all people. That is what you wrote that I wrote. I never wrote all people in my post. Reread my post. This is where you committed your straw man argument when you inserted all people into my post.
Pastor Loz
Looks like you need to take your own advice. Prov 4:23-24 makes no sense in your mythology, because it is assigning PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to the audience to keep, guard, watch over their own hearts. They can’t do that in calvinism, because your god inserts his own thoughts into their hearts regardless.
roland
It makes perfect sense the word of God is one of the means God uses to guide His elect unto the end. We can do that in Calvinism but not according to your straw man version of Calvinism we can’t. Don’t forget, the same man who wrote Proverbs 4:23-24 also wrote Proverbs 21:1. King Solomon is more in agreement with the Reformed view than the libertarian freewill view.
Pastor Loz: Does God turn the hearts of all kings and people or doesn’t He?
/// roland: I said all kings but I never wrote all people. That is what you wrote that I wrote. I never wrote all people in my post. Reread my post. This is where you committed your straw man argument when you inserted all people into my post.///
LOL. So now you have a different level of predetermination in relation to all kings, versus all people. Better not let your boy calvin hear you say that, as he applies the same level of absolute predetermination to every king, every man, and every demon. You STILL generalized from one king, singular, to all kings, plural.
Pastor Loz: Looks like you need to take your own advice. Prov 4:23-24 makes no sense in your mythology, because it is assigning PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to the audience to keep, guard, watch over their own hearts. They can’t do that in calvinism, because your god inserts his own thoughts into their hearts regardless.
/// roland: It makes perfect sense the word of God is one of the means God uses to guide His elect unto the end. We can do that in Calvinism but not according to your straw man version of Calvinism we can’t. Don’t forget, the same man who wrote Proverbs 4:23-24 also wrote Proverbs 21:1. King Solomon is more in agreement with the Reformed view than the libertarian freewill view.
LOL. The same “reformed” Solomon who turned away from God to the gods of his wives? Funny kind of calvinist he was. Like I said before, your god must have given him a dose of “evanescent” grace. And no, you didn’t deal with my point. Because in your mythology, no amount of “guarding” of hearts is going to change anything that your god unchangeably pre-determined.
That is funny!
The notion of guarding” a heart – is totally irrational when one understands – in Calvinism the state of nature (including man’s heart) is meticulously predetermined – nano-second by nano-second – by an infallible decree.
*AS-IF* the byproduct of an infallible decree needs to be guarded!
Calvinists don’t have Total Depravity – they have Total DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS!! ;-D
br.d
That is funny!
The notion of guarding” a heart – is totally irrational when one understands – in Calvinism the state of nature (including man’s heart) is meticulously predetermined – nano-second by nano-second – by an infallible decree.
roland
No, what is funny is your ignorance of Scripture! You say that Calvinists believing Scripture that tells us to guard our hearts is irrational. It is irrational if you hold to libertarian freewill. It is not irrational if you hold to a compatibilist view of Scripture. Paul wrote in Philippians that God works in believer and believers work out what God works in us. This is the Biblical view of God working in man to accomplish His will. Calvinists accept this teaching from Scripture while non-calvinists cannot. They deny it by their libertarian freewill philosophy.
Philippians 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
/// roland: You say that Calvinists believing Scripture that tells us to guard our hearts is irrational. It is irrational if you hold to libertarian freewill. It is not irrational if you hold to a compatibilist view of Scripture. Paul wrote in Philippians that God works in believer and believers work out what God works in us. This is the Biblical view of God working in man to accomplish His will. Calvinists accept this teaching from Scripture while non-calvinists cannot. They deny it by their libertarian freewill philosophy. ///
For someone who is constantly (and incorrectly) whining about straw men, you certainly produce plenty of your own. Non-calvinists believe that God works within believers, and believers co-operate. We are consistent, where you are not. You bang the drum about salvation being monergistic, then for SOME calvinists sanctification magically becomes synergistic. You should be outraged about that. It gives man reason to boast! If you claim it is monergistic, as OTHER calvinists do (depending on which breed of calvinism their god ordained), then every single exhortation and warning to believers is completely redundant, just part of your big calvo pantomime. “Oh but it’s a predetermined means to a predetermined end”. Hogwash. That makes it a meaningless means.
Pastor Loz
You bang the drum about salvation being monergistic, then for SOME calvinists sanctification magically becomes synergistic.
roland
Salvation is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic because believers have new hearts that now desire to obey God. Believers are no longer in the flesh but they are now in Christ with new hearts. This is the biblical teaching. Calvinism is consistent with this.
/// roland: Salvation is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic because believers have new hearts that now desire to obey God. Believers are no longer in the flesh but they are now in Christ with new hearts. This is the biblical teaching. Calvinism is consistent with this.///
Yet calvigod has mysteriously predetermined that these believers who “now desire to obey God” still sin, when he could just as easily predetermine them to completely cease sinning. Seems he prefers that sin to their repentance. But then what do you expect with an unholy imposter god?
roland
Salvation is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic
br.d
Actually in Calvinism – sanctification merely *APPEARS* to be synergistic.
Calvin’s god decrees a FALSE PERCEPTION of synergism into the Calvinist brain.
Synergism requires the Calvinist have the ability to make a choice
Which doesn’t exist in Calvinism
But FALSE PERCEPTIONS do exist in Calvinism
br.d
Which doesn’t exist in Calvinism
roland
You mean it doesn’t exist in STRAW MAN Calvinism but it does exist in real biblical Calvinism.
roland
You mean it doesn’t exist in STRAW MAN Calvinism but it does exist in real biblical Calvinism.
br.d
Lets examine that claim with 2 questions
1) Who determines what the PERCEPTION of “REAL” is within the Calvinist brain?
2) Is the determiner of the PERCEPTION of “REAL” within the Calvinist brain – required to determine that PERCEPTION to be a TRUE PERCEPTION?
br.d
1) Who determines what the PERCEPTION of “REAL” is within the Calvinist brain?
roland
I do, I perceive my own thoughts as real. I make real choice, I have real perceptions, I have real experiences, etc. These are my own, God does not experience my perceptions, thoughts, choices, etc. We have gone over this before. You are being stubborn by not admitting that you are wrong and that the Bible clearly shows God determining all things but experiencing and perceiving thought ARE REAL to humans.
br.d
2) Is the determiner of the PERCEPTION of “REAL” within the Calvinist brain – required to determine that PERCEPTION to be a TRUE PERCEPTION?
roland
When presume from STRAW MAN Calvinism these are the kinds of questions that arise. I can perceive what is true from false. If I can’t according to you, then why even respond to my posts? If I can’t perceive true from false as you LOGICALLY claim, then you’re responding in vain. Why waste your time with a computer that has just been programmed or a robot?
roland
Salvation is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic because believers have new hearts that now desire to obey God. Believers are no longer in the flesh but they are now in Christ with new hearts. This is the biblical teaching. Calvinism is consistent with this.
Because he doesn’t actually subscribe to the theistic fatalism that you do. He is simply following your philosophical theory to its conclusion. I thought you had a Masters.
roland
Salvation is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic
br.d
And roland will NEVER be able to show how anything in Calvinism is synergistic!
He just quotes scriptures which contradict his belief system while making believe they affirm it! :-]
br.d
1) Who determines what the PERCEPTION of “REAL” is within the Calvinist brain?
roland
I do
br.d
Oh yea!!
Calvin’s god is not the determiner of whatsoever PERCEPTIONS infallibly come to pass in your brain!!
There goes Calvinism’s doctrine of infallible decrees – which stipulates that WHATSOEVER comes to pass is solely and exclusively determined at the foundation of the world.
Thank you for that example of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS :-]
roland
I perceive my own thoughts as real.
br.d
Sure you do – because you have the function of perception.
But in Calvinism – your PERCEPTIONS are determined you know who :-]
Who just happens to be an external mind
roland
I make real choice
br.d
And that’s why you can’t provide an example of one! :-]
roland
I have real perceptions, I have real experiences, etc. These are my own
br.d
See 1st answer above
rolan
, God does not experience my perceptions, thoughts, choices, etc.
br.d
DUH!!!
roland
We have gone over this before.
br.d
Not quite!
You refused to provide just one example of you having a PERCEPTION of being granted the function of choice.
Roland
The Bible clearly shows God determining all things – but experiencing and perceiving thought ARE REAL to humans.
br.d
AH! But according to Calvinism – Calvin’s god is the sole and exclusively determiner of whatsoever comes to pass – not you.
Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – not you
Leaving ZERO% left over UN-determined for anyone else to determine.
But you declared the opposite
You declared yourself as that determiner of the PERCEPTIONS that come to pass in your brain
So thank you for that example of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS! :-]
Pastor Loz
Non-calvinists believe that God works within believers, and believers co-operate. We are consistent, where you are not.
roland
I can agree with your statement, believers and God do cooperate on sanctification because of regeneration. However, I disagree with non-calvinists that believe UNBELIEVERS can cooperate with God in salvation.
Calvinists do not believe we become MAGICALLY synergistic. The Bible teaches that BELIEVERS do cooperate with God but not UNBELIEVERS.
roland
The Bible teaches that BELIEVERS do cooperate with God but not UNBELIEVERS
br.d
That’s simply understood as the difference between the bible and Calvinism.
br.d
That’s simply understood as the difference between the bible and Calvinism.
roland
No it is simply understood as Calvinism being derived from Scripture. However, if you use STRAW MAN Calvinism, like you, then you come to the same unbiblical conclusion over and over again.
br.d
That’s simply understood as the difference between the bible and Calvinism.
roland
No it is simply understood as Calvinism being derived from Scripture.
br.d
That is your claim!
And a claim – without proof is nothing more than a claim.
So lets test your claim
1) Calvinist conclusions manifest as DOUBLE-MINDED conclusions
2) Calvinism is derived from scripture
CONCLUSION
DOUBLE-MINDED conclusions are derived from scripture
Good one roland! :-]
br.d
CONCLUSION
DOUBLE-MINDED conclusions are derived from scripture
Good one roland! :-]
roland
that’s your conclusion NOT MINE:]
br.d
CONCLUSION
DOUBLE-MINDED conclusions are derived from scripture
Good one roland! :-]
roland
that’s your conclusion NOT MINE:]
br.d
And that explains why you will declare
-quote
under libertarian freewill philosophy the king’s heart is free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN
But you can’t answer YES to what LOGICALLY follows – that the kings’ heart is NOT free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN in Calvinism.
A Calvinist can make anything he wants to magically disappear – by simply refusing to acknowledge it! :-]
br.d
But you can’t answer YES to what LOGICALLY follows – that the kings’ heart is NOT free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN in Calvinism.
roland
I’ve answered all your not free to turn or free to turn questions. I’ll write it one more time. The king’s heart is free to do what God has determined it to do. Why? Because the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand. It is not free to operate apart from the Lord’s hand unless the Lord decides to do so. The king is not free in the libertarian freewill sense. I reject LFW because the Bible does not say the king’s heart is free from all influence, any influence, the king’s heart is free to do as it pleases, etc. The king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand and the Lord’s turn it wheresoever He pleases.
roland
I’ve answered all your not free to turn or free to turn questions.
br.d
But you couldn’t give a simple YES/NO answer
And I know why! :-]
roland
The king’s heart is free to do what God has determined it to do.
br.d
DUH!
I’ve been telling you that for how many months?
roland
It is NOT FREE to operate apart from the Lord’s hand
br.d
You mean – it is NOT FREE to be/do otherwise than what Calvin’s god determines
Right???
roland
The king is not free in the libertarian freewill sense.
br.d
Which means the king is NOT FREE to TURN or NOT TURN because Calvin’s god can RENDER-CERTAIN TURN or he can RENDER-CERTAIN NOT TURN. But he can’t RENDER-CERTAIN both.
And he can’t leave it OPEN for the king to determine.
And since it LOGICALLY follows – a TRUE choice requires at least 2 options [TURN] and [NOT TURN] – and only one of these can be made available to the Calvinist – then the choice has already been made FOR the Calvinist.
And thus the Calvnist’s PERCEPTION of choice is a divinely decreed FALSE PERCEPTION
roland
I reject LFW because the Bible does ….
br.d
The very LIBERTY you assume your brain has – every time you PERCEIVE yourself as having the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE.
Like the man who looks at a bird which quacks, has webbed feet, can fly and swim – and that man declares ducks don’t exist! :-]
In Calvinism every creaturely movement (including impulses in the Calvinist’s brain) are MONERGISTIC
Humans functioning in any synergistic manner with Calvin’s god is LOGICALLY impossible.
The function of “co-operation” LOGICALLY entails two parties who both have DETERMINATIVE power.
And in Calvinism – there is only one being who exists who has any DETERMINATIVE power.
The notion of guarding” a heart – is totally irrational when one understands – in Calvinism the state of nature (including man’s heart) is meticulously predetermined – nano-second by nano-second – by an infallible decree.
roland
No, what is funny is your ignorance of Scripture!
br.d
*AS-IF* scripture affirms DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS :-]
roland
Philippians 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, ……
br.d
Thank you for providing a scripture that CONTRADICTS what LOGICALLY follows in Calvinism! :-]
Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern
They hold [X] as TRUE *AS-IF* [X] is FALSE
They hold [X] as FALSE *AS-IF* [X] is TRUE
This thinking pattern facilitates having one’s cake and eating it – whichever way one needs it at a given moment.
It also facilitates speaking out of two sides of the mouth – to facilitate whatever one needs at a given moment
The Calvinist urgency is not TRUTH
His urgency is to make himself LOOK good and make his position *APPEAR* to be the superior position.
Calvinism is 99% COSMETIC
roland
the king, does not have libertarian freewill. However proponents of libertarian freewill would not agree with this verse because under libertarian freewill philosophy the king’s heart is free to choose to turn or not turn, it can’t be both in God’s hands and be determined by God
br.d
So the king was not given the choice of turning or NOT turning – right????
br.d
So the king was not given the choice of turning or NOT turning – right????
roland
He was given the choice as determined by God’s sovereignty. The king’s heart is the hand of the Lord, the Lord turns wheresoever He pleases. The king is still making choices but those choices are determined by God. I know, more double speak but I’m ok with that as it is truth derived from Scripture.
roland
under libertarian freewill philosophy the king’s heart is free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN
br.d
So the king was not given the choice of turning or NOT turning – right????
roland
He was given the choice as determined by God’s sovereignty.
br.d
Looks whose evading the question again!
And I know why! 😀
You said on LFW the king’s heart is free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN
Which is a freedom that does not exist in Calvinism
So the king was NOT free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN – right????
Cmon roland why do you have to HIDE the answer behind vague statements like “Determined by god’s sovereignty”
br.d
Cmon roland why do you have to HIDE the answer behind vague statements like “Determined by god’s sovereignty”
roland
I’m poorly communicating what I am trying to say. You’re misunderstanding me. I don’t believe men have libertarian freewill as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I was making the argument FROM a LFW position, one that I do not hold. I was trying to point out that LFW is not in agreement with Scripture by citing Proverbs 21:1. I obviously failed to clearly communicate that.
roland
I’m poorly communicating what I am trying to say. …….
br.d
Cmon roland the question is very simple.
Let’s review
You said “under libertarian freewill philosophy the king’s heart is free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN”
br.d
So for the 3rd time – here is the question:
Because LFW doesn’t exist in Calvinism – therefore the king was NOT free to choose to TURN or NOT TURN???
Should we be surprised that you can’t give a YES/NO answer?? :-]
Pastor Loz
So Roland, why don’t you explain to us SPECIFICALLY how each of the Calvin quotes Br D provided mean something DIFFERENT “in context”, to the plain, explicit meaning they appear to have to us as written?
roland
I would love to but I don’t where br.d is quoting Calvin from. That’s why I have asked him for chapters, sections, page numbers, which edition of the Institutes.
Pastor Loz
Or is it easier just to handwave them away with a generalized, unsubstantiated assertion, like you have?
roland
Of course it is easier to hand wave them away BUT I’m willing to read where br.d is quoting from.
Pastor Loz
Not going to hold my breath on this one
roland
You can breath!!!
Roland
Scripture says Adam saw that the fruit was desirable, or rather Eve first, then Adam.
br.d
AH but remember – in Calvinism a person is ONLY free to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.
Remember in Calvinism you have COMPATIBILISM
On COMPATIBILISM creaturely freedom must be COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Calvin’s god decreed (i.e. determined) impulses within Adam and Eve’s brains.
Adam and Eve were FREE to have those impulses – because those impulses were COMPATIBLE with what was determined
But Adam and Eve are NOT FREE and therefore NOT PERMITTED to have alternative impulses.
Because those impulses would be NOT COMPATIBLE with what was determined
Roland
Cain, he wanted to kill Abel. He was angry and jealous.
br.d
YUP!
Because those were the impulses that Calvin’s god CAUSE/PERMITTED come to pass within Cain’s brain
Those impulses were COMPATIBLE with what was determined
Cain was NOT FREE and NOT PERMITTED to have any alternative impulses
Because those impulses would be NOT COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
Makes perfect sense to a LOGICAL Calvinist – because he’s a COMPATIBILIST. :-]
/// Roland Same for Cain, he wanted to kill Abel. He was angry and jealous.
Genesis 4:6-7 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” ///
The Calvinist interpretation of this passage makes God completely disingenuous, even to the point where He is taunting Cain. In Calvinism, God is asking Cain these questions and exhorting him, whilst all the while knowing that He has secretly, unchangeably predetermined him to be unable/unwilling to comply, and to murder Abel.
/// Roland: “I believe God does use means to accomplish His will. He can leave men alone as in passing them over. Romans 1:26 talks about God giving people up to their own passions and desires. He can allow for Satan to have his way with people. He can send a strong delusion as 2 Thessalonians 2:11. He can harden their hearts as the way He did with pharaoh. He can hide the truth from them as Jesus did in speaking parables. He does not have do something to their thinking or their brains because man doesn’t want to be saved.”
So here we have a self-contradiction within a couple of sentences. “He does not have to so something to their thinking or their brains” versus “He can send a strong delusion…He can harden their hearts”.
Which is it, Roland?
Roland: “I believe God…..can leave men alone as in passing them over.
br.d
Roland calls Calvin’s god decreeing whatsoever comes to pass “leaving them alone”
So impulses which come to pass within people’s brains is NOT a part of the “Whatsoever” comes to pass!!!
Can it get any more DOUBLE-MINDED??? ;-D
How many Calvinists like roland live in a nice little lolly-pop world – where Calvin’s god decrees [X] and NOT decrees [X] at the same time.
And rhutchin goes LOL when I observe Calvinists are DOUBLE-MINDED and have ZERO discernment about it!
And then on top of that roland insists scripture proves DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
I’ll bet Calvinists don’t follow those thinking patterns when they handling money.
If they did – every con-artist in their nice little lolly-pop world – would soon have all of their money :-]
Calvinists give long, convoluted, round-about answers to make it seem like they are not saying “God controls all our thoughts,” when that’s exactly what they are saying.
Roland had said, “I repeat again that there is not one prominent Calvinists who is teaching that a sinner cannot receive the gift of faith because ‘not one single impulse can come to pass within a human being’s brain unless Calvin’s God specifically decrees it.’”…”
And I would say that’s the problem. They don’t teach it, but they mean it. They don’t come right out and say it (they try to hide/disguise it), but it’s exactly what their theology affirms. They try very hard (look at the word gymnastics they go through) to make it seem like they believe that people make real choices and so we deserve the punishments. And they have to do this because if Calvinists admitted that God (Calvinism’s god) controls our thinking and actions then they would have to admit that He is responsible for our sins and should be held accountable for them, and then He’d be unjust for punishing people for doing what He caused them do it.
I believe that God can use our self-chosen sins for His plans, but I do not believe that God predestines those sins or that He gives us no choice to do differently. And since they are our self-chosen sins (and not in the nonsensical Calvinist way of “Sinners can only choose the sin God predestined for them and cannot desire to do anything different,” where we don’t really have a choice, even though they call it “choice”), we truly deserve any punishment we get, even if God incorporates those sins into His plans. He doesn’t preplan/cause our sins, but He can and does use them and work them into His plans.
The God of the Bible is a very big, complex, wise God who can handle things He doesn’t predestine, cause, control. Who can work everything, even things He didn’t plan/cause, into His plans.
Calvi-god is a tiny, simple-minded, stupid god who can only handle what he himself causes, who can’t handle any other factors than what he predestines and causes. If there was one piece of dust that escaped Calvi-god’s control, he’d fall apart and cease to be god and all his plans would come undone. A god that can be dethroned by one rogue piece of dust is no god at all.
Perfectly put Heather. If calvi-god was just (which he isn’t even remotely), he would have to send himself to hell on Judgment Day
Heather
And they have to do this because if Calvinists admitted that God (Calvinism’s god) controls our thinking and actions then they would have to admit that He is responsible for our sins and should be held accountable for them, and then He’d be unjust for punishing people for doing what He caused them do it.
roland
Here’s a list of verses that show how God CONTROLS both spectrums of the human experience: good and evil, light and dark, riches and poverty, health and sickness, etc. When I first began to study Reformed theology I struggled with verses such as these ones for a couple of years. I did not want to believe that God wounds, creates calamity, causes poverty, kills, brings low, etc. My non-reformed pastors told me God didn’t do these things and that these verses are just symbolic. God doesn’t make people sick, poor, kill, He does the opposite. I believed my pastors. Not anymore, I take them in the plain sense of the reading. These verses say what they say about God. A person can believe it, reject it, or twist it. Then after rejecting the true revelation of God, a person creates their idol and that’s what they worship.
Deuteronomy 32:39
39 ‘Now see that I, even I, am He,
And there is no God besides Me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.
1 Samuel 2:6-7
6 “The Lord kills and makes alive;
He brings down to the grave and brings up.
7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich;
He brings low and lifts up.
Ecclesiastes 7:13-14
13 Consider the work of God;
For who can make straight what He has made crooked?
14 In the day of prosperity be joyful,
But in the day of adversity consider:
Surely God has appointed the one as well as the other,
So that man can find out nothing that will come after him.
Isaiah 45:5-7
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other;
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.’
Lamentations 3:37-38
37 Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass,
When the Lord has not commanded it?
38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That woe and well-being proceed?
Just looking for where these verses or any others in the Bible say that God unchangeably ordains, decrees, plans, predetermines all sin, renders it certain so that the sinner cannot do otherwise…
Oh I know! I’ll go to Calvin, Helm, Palmer, Cheung, Sproul Junior, Piper! Who needs the Bible after all?
Pastor Loz
Just looking for where these verses or any others in the Bible say that God unchangeably ordains, decrees, plans, predetermines all sin, renders it certain so that the sinner cannot do otherwise…
roland
I agree with you, let me know when you find a verse that says God unchangeable ordains, decrees, plans, predetermines all sin, renders it certain it so that the sinner cannot do other wise. I agree.
But us Calvinists put ourselves in a tough position when we believe what Paul wrote in
Ephesians 1:11 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,
Does all things include sin? Yes but we also believe Scripture that teaches us the God is not the author of sin
James 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
There must be a way to harmonize this and the closest I’ve found is the compatibilist argument. But can God’s decree change? The Bible says no.
Proverbs 19:21
21 There are many plans in a man’s heart,
Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand.
Isaiah 14:24
24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying,
“Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass,
And as I have purposed, so it shall stand:
I don’t believe that anyone can stop God’s counsel, purpose, or thoughts. If He has decreed it, I believe He will accomplish His plan.
roland
Does all things include sin? Yes but we also believe Scripture that teaches us the God is not the author of sin
br.d
And at the same time Calvinists teaches – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – was AUTHORED at the foundation of the world – by Calvin’s god.
So “ALL” does not equal “ALL”
But that’s not DOUBLE-MINDED!
wink wink :-]
br.d
So “ALL” does not equal “ALL”
But that’s not DOUBLE-MINDED!
wink wink :-]
roland
Yes just like when non-calvinists quote Scripture where it is written that Christ died for ALL, there it means ALL! But when a Calvinist quotes a verse that says ALL, such God works all things after the counsel of His own will, it doesn’t mean ALL things!
And of course Calvinists are the only double-minded, non-calvinists are never double-minded.
roland
Yes just like when non-calvinists quote Scripture where it is written that Christ died for ALL, there it means ALL!
br.d
The understanding there – would be similar to you and your wife bringing a Christmas Goose into a room full waiting family members.
The Christmas Goose is for ALL
But they are the determiners of how much of it they choose to eat
In Calvinism – it is SAID to be for ALL – when that is actually FALSE
roland
But when a Calvinist quotes a verse that says ALL, such God works all things after the counsel of His own will, it doesn’t mean ALL things!
br.d
The issue in that verse is not the word “All” it is the word “works”.
When we alter the meaning of the word “works” in order to force it to mean “Determines” – we automatically introduce the concept of CONCEPTION. The term “Determine” carries with it inferences of CONCEIVING something with specific INTENT.
So sins and evils become the INTENT of the Calvin’s god – and thus sins and evils are a primary part of the “works” of Calvin’s god.
So we have the Hebrew parents throwing their children into the fire of Moloch.
What LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the Calvinist interpretation – is that Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVED and then RENDERED-CERTAIN the Hebrew parents throw their children into the fire – giving the Hebrew parents no alternative.
Thus making adult parents throw their babies into the fire of Moloch becomes a part of the WORKS of Calvin’s god.
br.d
When we alter the meaning of the word “works” in order to force it to mean “Determines” – we automatically introduce the concept of CONCEPTION.
roland
From John MacArthur’s Study Bible, he’s commenting on Ephesians 1:11:
“The word translated ‘works’ is the same one from which ‘energy,’ ‘energetic,’ and ‘energize’ are derived. When God created the world, He gave it sufficient energy to begin immediately to operate as He had planned. It was not simply ready to function, but was created functioning. As God works out His plan according ‘to the counsel of HIs will,’ He energizes every believer with the power necessary for his spiritual completion.”
I missed the part where MacArthur altered the word WORKS so that it means DETERMINED. I consulted several other Calvinist resources on these verses not one mentioned what you did that WORKS means DETERMINED.
What is that called again when a person builds up an argument that is false then tears it down using their version of what they believe something is? STRAW MAN.
roland
From John MacArthur’s Study Bible, he’s commenting on Ephesians 1:11:
br.d
One thing you can always count on with John MacArthur
He will without fail – ALWAYS – highlight the “good” side of the equation – and obfuscate the “evil” side of the equation.
And that is the case with this example.
So lets see what John MacArthur is obfuscating
roland
“The word translated ‘works’ is the same one from which ‘energy,’ ‘energetic,’ and ‘energize’ are derived. When God created the world, He gave it sufficient energy to begin immediately to operate as He had planned.
br.d
Correct
The word is probably the Greek word “Energia” which is also found in verses such as Satan “working” signs and wonders.
roland
It was not simply ready to function, but was created functioning. As God works out His plan according ‘to the counsel of HIs will,’ He energizes every believer with the power necessary for his spiritual completion.”
br.d
So here is where MacArthur needs to make the word “works” be synonymous with “Determines”
roland
I missed the part where MacArthur altered the word WORKS so that it means DETERMINED. I consulted several other Calvinist resources on these verses not one mentioned what you did that WORKS means DETERMINED.
br.d
You were predisposed to not see it.
The word “planned” is the link which MacArthur uses to make the word “works” synonymous with “Determines”
But in this example with MacArthur – you did what MacArthur does
You evaded addressing the primary point of contention.
How does the concept of “works” as meaning “Determines” LOGICALLY play out in in regard to “evil” events
So we take MacArthur’s explanation which he limited only to “good” events – and we apply it to “evil” events.
MacArthur says:
When God created [X], He gave [X] sufficient energy to begin immediately to operate as He had planned.
Now all we have to do is make [X] equal “All sins and evils”
Thus we have:
When Calvin’s god created [All sins and evils], He gave [All sins and evils] sufficient energy to begin immediately to operate as He had planned.
And of course – he MAKES [All sins and evils] come to pass infallibly
Thus he gives sufficient energy to sinful evil impulses – to come to pass infallibly within the human brain
And thus IRRESISTIBLY within the human brain.
Which simply means – he gives humans absolutely no choice.
br.d
Now all we have to do is make [X] equal “All sins and evils
roland
You can’t insert your statement of something into what another person is saying and make that statement someone else’s. You’re attributing something to MacArthur that he did not say in his commentary. You just when and changed his commentary to suit your conception of what MacArthur is saying.
br.d
Now all we have to do is make [X] equal “All sins and evils
roland
You can’t insert your statement of something into what another person is saying and make that statement someone else’s.
br.d
Correct
We can’t make any statement be someone else’s statement.
We can say Hillary Clinton did “wipe” her email server.
But Hillary Clinton did not make that statement – she claimed the opposite.
But we have complete evidence now to prove that she in fact did have her email server wiped
She simply refused to state that fact – because she wanted to obfuscate it.
Same deal for MacArthur
We can’t put words in MacArthur’s mouth and make him tell the WHOLE truth.
But we can look at the evidence and recognize what the WHOLE truth is.
As already explained to you, it means all things God works. There isn’t anything God does that isn’t after the counsel of His will. Next.
/// roland: Calvinists put ourselves in a tough position when we believe what Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:11 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.
Does all things include sin? Yes but we also believe Scripture that teaches us the God is not the author of sin
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. There must be a way to harmonize this and the closest I’ve found is the compatibilist argument. ///
Every Calvinist I have debated on Eph 1:11 seems to believe there is only one possible interpretation of Eph 1:11 – that God works all things = God unchangeably decrees, predetermines everything that happens. It’s not the only possible interpretation. There are at least two others, or two aspects of an alternative explanation, which has absolutely no trouble harmonizing with James 1:13, or any other verse, because there isn’t even an apparent contradiction, let alone an actual one.
1. Everything that God does (all the things God works), He does in accordance with the counsel of His will. In other words, nothing God does is unplanned or random.
2. God works in and through all things, including those He has not planned, predetermined, or done by His own direct action, to bring about His purpose.
/// Roland: But can God’s decree change? The Bible says no. Proverbs 19:21 21 There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand.
Isaiah 14:24 24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass,
And as I have purposed, so it shall stand:
I don’t believe that anyone can stop God’s counsel, purpose, or thoughts. If He has decreed it, I believe He will accomplish His plan. ///
The debate is not about whether God’s decree can change. No being outside of God can change His decree. No-one can stop Him from doing what He purposes to do. He does everything He pleases. The debate is about what God decrees.
roland – please take each of those bible verses and for each one – show us how that verse EXPLICITLY declared Calvin’s god determines whatsoever comes to pass within the human brain.
Otherwise – you are simply misusing scripture
br.d
roland – please take each of those bible verses and for each one – show us how that verse EXPLICITLY declared Calvin’s god determines whatsoever comes to pass within the human brain.
roland
And when did I make the claim that these verses EXPLICITLY say this?
You are asking me to defend a claim I never made. I provided these verse to Heather to show that there are not things that God has not created or does not create. I provided them to show Heather that these verses show us the spectrum in which God is involved with creation. The claim you are asking me to defend, EXPLICITLY, by the way, anytime someone uses the word EXPLICITLY they’re setting a very difficult standard to meet, is not a direct statement of Scripture. It is a claim derived from Scripture.
br.d
roland – please take each of those bible verses and for each one – show us how that verse EXPLICITLY declared Calvin’s god determines whatsoever comes to pass within the human brain.
roland
And when did I make the claim that these verses EXPLICITLY say this?
You are asking me to defend a claim I never made.
br.d
Ok then provide at least one verse in the bible which declares Calvinism’s doctrine of divine decrees – which stipulates that Calvin’s god determines whatsoever comes to pass. Which it it is TRUE would have to include whatsoever impulses come to pass in every Calvinist brain.
br.d
Which it it is TRUE would have to include whatsoever impulses come to pass in every Calvinist brain.
roland
You are not going to find a Bible that says God cause impulses to pass in every Calvinist brain. There is a divine decree but no verse that says what you are asking me to provide. It is not just one verse used to support the doctrine of God’s decree, it is many verses. The Scripture uses different words to convey God’s decree such as counsel, plan, purpose, etc. You’ve read Robert McLaughlin, he provides a lot of Scripture. While I have not read all the way through his article on the Divine Decree, it seems like I would agree with him for the most part.
roland
You are not going to find a Bible that says God cause impulses to pass in every Calvinist brain.
br.d
Well – if there were a verse that says that – it would confirm Calvinist’s doctrine if infallible decrees.
Congratulations!
We’ve found something that LOGICALLY follows in Calvinist doctrine – which is not found in scripture!
And that explains why Calvinists evade like the plague – what LOGICALLY follows in their belief system :-]
roland
The Scripture uses different words to convey God’s decree such as counsel, plan, purpose, etc.
br.d
And a human mind has to take each one of those terms found within scripture and EQUATE them with “Determine”
Take “Works all things for the good” as an example
Here the Calvinist equates the term “Works” with “Determines”
So in this case – “Works all things” equals “Determines all things”
But this interpretation comes with a consequence the Calvinist does not find palatable.
That consequence being – sin and evil – which represent a large part of “ALL things” become the “Works” of Calvin’s god
And you know the Calvinist psychological response to that LOGICAL consequence is the refuse to acknowledge it.
Wonderfully said!!
They try to hide it and disguise it!
And then they claim – whatever they don’t say is not true.
Bill Clinton didn’t say he had X with that woman Monica
For roland – if Bill Clinton didn’t say it – it can’t be true! :-]
Thank you to everyone for their input.
Pastor Loz, I was gonna say the same thing: Where do these verses (that Roland quoted) say anything about God preplanning, ordaining, controlling, causing sin. To kill and make alive, to wound and heal, to make sick or well, is not the same thing as causing someone to sin, causing them to do something God commanded them not to do and then holding them accountable for it. These verses Roland quoted are on a different level than predestining sin, which would make God the author of evil (even though Calvinists deny it) and unjust for punishing people for doing the evil He caused them to do. Calvinists read into these verses things that are not there.
Just like how they read verses about God causing His plans to work out … but they hear “God plans all things, and all things happen because God planned them” instead. But that’s not what the verses say. Just because God has plans He works out doesn’t mean He preplanned/causes everything that happens. Calvinists don’t give God enough credit for being a big, wise God who can allow true free-will but who can still figure out how to work our choices (ones He didn’t predestine/cause) into His plans to get His plans accomplished.
Roland says: “But us Calvinists put ourselves in a tough position …” for believing that God predestined/controls everything yet isn’t the author of sin.
No, that’s not a tough position. It’s an impossible position. Totally contradictory. Irreconcilable. And that’s why their arguments are so convoluted and contradictory, and it’s why they always fall back on “Well, you can’t understand it anyway. You can’t use human logic to figure it out. You just have to accept it. Who are you to talk back to God anyway?”
[You know, it’s funny, but I was just reading a quote from RC Sproul about how he became a Calvinist. He said that he couldn’t get away from the weight of the logic and arguments for Calvinism (from other Calvinists), and so he had to submit to it. And yet Calvinists constantly shame Christians who use logical arguments to question/fight Calvinism, accusing them of putting human logic over God. So according to Calvinists, it’s okay to use logic to get into Calvinism but not to get out of it. Hypocritical!]
And Roland quoted Eph 1:11 to show God predestines everything, even sin. But what is really predestined here? In Eph 1:5, believers are predestined to the adoption of children (it’s not that sinners are predestined to be believers), which Romans 8:23 tells us is the redemption of our bodies. And here’s Eph 1:11-12 (KJV): “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.” This doesn’t say that God predestined everything that happens, even sin. What was predestined is either the eternal inheritance believers will get or that we will be to the praise of His glory (or both). God did not predestine our actions or that certain sinners will become believers. He predestined that anyone who believes in Jesus will get an inheritance and be for God’s glory. Big difference! (And once again, “working all things” is different than the Calvinist’s “predestining/causing/controlling all things.” God can work His plans out without predestining, causing, controlling all that happens. Or maybe Calvinists don’t think He’s that smart and complex?)
And he used Proverbs 19:21 to show that God’s decrees never change. Yet this verse contradicts Calvinism because (if Calvinism is true) God Himself would have decreed the plans that were in man’s heart … and then He contradicts them. Decreeing one thing and then decreeing the opposite is indeed God changing His decrees.
I agree with Roland that no one can stop God’s counsel, purpose, or thoughts, that if He decreed something it will be accomplished. But I disagree with the “how.” Calvinists say God has to predestined/control all things (even sin) for His plans to get done. But I say that God, in His supreme wisdom, being over and above all, can work with (not causing) man’s choices to eventually get His overall plans accomplished.
Example: Undercover police don’t have to cause criminals to be criminals or to control their criminal behavior in order to get their undercover plans done, to get justice done. Undercover police just smartly know how to incorporate the criminal’s self-chosen-behavior and choices into their undercover plans, in order to get justice done. In both these cases (whether the police cause/control the criminal’s illegal choices or whether they just incorporate the criminal’s choices into their plans), their undercover plans for justice get accomplished. But in the first case (causing/controlling), the police would be the ones who would be truly responsible for the criminal’s choices (and so it would be unjust for them to punish the criminals). But in the second one (allowing the criminals to make their own choices and incorporating it into the police’s plans), the criminals are the guilty ones and can be held accountable. All the police did was let the criminals make the illegal choices they were going to make, and the police incorporated it into a plan to get justice done.
God doesn’t have to predestine, cause, control all things, even sin, to get His plans done. He is much wiser, more complex, more powerful than that. He can work everything – even our self-chosen sins – into His plans. It’s only the Calvinists who say He can’t, who limit His power and sovereignty, saying that He can only be God if He predestines, causes, controls all things, even sin. The do great damage to His character and His Word, while thinking that they are honoring Him and bringing Him glory. (And that, to me, shows how demonic Calvinism is.)
And I think Br.d is wise – and has every right – to ask Calvinists for verses that EXPLICITY teach what they believe. Because Calvinism is all about secret, double meanings for verses. Calvinists takes what the Bible actually does explicitly say and they replace it with their Calvinistic “hidden messages,” with things that God does not explicitly say (which contradicts what He does explicitly say). So when Br.d asks for verses that clearly teach what Calvinism says, he is pointing out that Calvinism is built on reading into the Bible things that are not there, in opposition to what is clearly there.
The big difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is that we (non-Calvinists) point to what God clearly said and we take it as God said it, in a commonsense way. (If God says “seek me,” He means “seek me.” If God says “Jesus died for all,” He means “Jesus died for all.” If God said “whosoever,” He means “whosoever.” If God said “the world,” He means “the world.” Etc.) But Calvinists point to verses and say (essentially), “Yes, it says that but it doesn’t really mean that. It really means ….”, based on the things they’ve read into the Bible, things that are not in the verse at all.
Consider the way people read the writings of Nostradamus.
They read a verse and they think they see some event in history which could possibly fit into that verse.
They find a verse that could possibly be interpreted as the Kennedy assassination
They find a verse that could possibly be interpreted as 911
They find a verse that could possibly be interpreted as Hitler
Its just a matter of coincidence – how the words in a verse could possibly be interpreted to affirm the presupposition – this verse must be a prophecy about some event in history – its just a matter of finding some event in history that might produce a probable match.
This is N.T. Wright;s observation of the way Calvinists use scripture.
He jokes about it – and for example calls the book of Romans
-quote
“Calvinism’s HAPPY HUNTING GROUND” ;-D
The mind starts with an EXTRA BIBLICAL concept
It goes HUNTING within the text of scripture for anything that can be construed as matching that concept.
The process requires stretching or shifting the meanings of words in the text in order to make a text produce a match they are looking for.
So they are really not reading the text to discover what the author meant.
They are CO-OPTING the words the author used to convey what he meant – in order to make those words match what they are HUNTING for.
And that explains why Calvinists have their 40+ golden proof-text verses.
br.d
The mind starts with an EXTRA BIBLICAL concept
It goes HUNTING within the text of scripture for anything that can be construed as matching that concept.
The process requires stretching or shifting the meanings of words in the text in order to make a text produce a match they are looking for.
roland
And of course non-calvinists don’t do this! Only Calvinists are guilty of this!!!
roland
And of course non-calvinists don’t do this! Only Calvinists are guilty of this!!!
br.d
Nah!
That use of any text is common to all humans
Another characteristic of Calvinism – when you look for it – becomes apparent – is how COSMETIC Calvinism is.
The Calvinist focus is not a focus on discovering what is true
The Calvinist focus is almost exclusively about how much they can make something APPEAR to be true
Calvinist are extremely focused on making Calvinism APPEAR in some kind of positive light.
In the world of cosmetics – the materials used are materials that can be used to create a certain APPEARANCE.
And cosmetics have two primary purposes
1) To cover up something one doesn’t find appealing
2) To cover that up with a material which can produce an appealing APPEARANCE
Calvinists – use words as their cosmetic material.
And that explains why Calvinism’s strong suit is manipulating words.
For example – Calvin’s god doesn’t really “prevent” any event from coming to pass – because no event can possibly come to pass without him FIRST CONCEIVING and then decreeing that event into existence. And once it is decreed into existence its existence is infallible and cannot be prevented.
But the Calvinist needs the APPEARANCE of divine prevention to exist within his system.
So he must manufacture a way to SIMULATE divine prevention.
He creates a COSMETIC representation of divine prevention.
And the Calvinist’s COSMETIC material are words.
And that explains why so many of rhutchin’s posts are grand attempts at WORDSMITHING
The art of WORDSMITHING is Calvinism efficacy.
Earlier Rhutchin said: “If Satan does not blind a person, then the person will see the light of the gospel.”
So, he is saying that the default, without-interference ending for the “totally depraved/unregenerated” person would be to see the light of the gospel!?! That the totally-depraved person’s condition would lead them, by default, to believe the gospel, if it were not for Satan interfering!?!
I agree with BR.D.: That’s too funny! A total contradiction to and denial of what Calvinism’s total depravity/total inability is!
Notice how the Calvinist always points the CAUSE of why whatsoever comes to pass
Anything and everything – EXCEPT Calvin’s god – whose infallible decree is the DETERMINATE CAUSE.
The Calvinist is unwittingly telling us:
Any mask which can hide the TRUE face of Calvinism – is better than looking at its TRUE face. :-]
Yes, in calvinism satan is just as much God’s sock puppet as every other demon, person, tarantula and molecule. The only difference between God and the god of this world is God is more powerful.
That reminds me of Mike Myers’s – Dr. Evil and his “mini-me” ;-D
I wasn’t planning on restarting any conversations, but I did want to throw this in after finding a verse which I believe explains the whole “gospel is veiled to those perishing” passage (which Calvinists use to say that God veils the gospel to the non-elect so that they cannot believe). Rhutchin replied to my question of “But how does He ensure that the non-elect do not get saved?” with this reply: “Paul explains, ‘If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,…’”
Here is my reply (something I wrote on my blog):
Ahh, but do they not believe (perish) because the gospel is veiled to them or is the gospel veiled to them because they refuse to believe?
Romans 1:21, 24-25: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened…. Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts … They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator….”
2 Timothy 4: 3-4: “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Romans 2:5: “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself…”
Calvinists say that God veils the gospel (through Satan) to keep the non-elect from believing, and that He removes the veil from the elect so that they can/will turn to Him and believe.
But the Bible says that when we turn Him – after we turn to Him – the veil is removed: 2 Corinthians 3:16: “But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”
It’s not that we don’t turn to Christ because the Gospel is veiled. It’s that the Gospel is veiled because we don’t turn to Christ. But it will be unveiled for anyone who does turn to Him (and we all can). The choice is ours.
“But they were broken off because of unbelief … And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in …” (Romans 11:20,23)
And technically, the “veil” thing in the comment Rhutchin made (2 Corinthians 4:3) is about the fact that the Gospel (salvation through faith in Jesus) is veiled to the Jews when they read the old covenant in the Old Testament (2 Corinthians 3:14). Paul is saying that the truth of salvation in Jesus is not in the Old Testament, which the Jews adhere to (the Law), that the new covenant cannot be understood by reading the old covenant. And that’s when Paul says “but whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” It’s not that they had no ability to believe in Jesus because God caused the Gospel to be veiled so that they wouldn’t believe; it’s that they can’t find the truth of salvation through Christ if all they keep reading/believing/following is the old covenant. But if they will willingly turn to Jesus, they will find the truth of salvation through Jesus.
(I had never noticed before that the “veiled Gospel” has to do with the fact that the Jewish old covenant does not explain the way of salvation in Jesus, and this has nothing to do with Calvinism’s idea that God prevents the “non-elect” from understanding the Gospel. And I just wanted to share this here.)
Heather,
You had said:
“(I had never noticed before that the “veiled Gospel” has to do with the fact that the Jewish old covenant does not explain the way of salvation in Jesus, and this has nothing to do with Calvinism’s idea that God prevents the “non-elect” from understanding the Gospel. And I just wanted to share this here.)”
My response:
Yes, THAT. This is what I’ve been explaining for a long time on this blog, to anyone who will listen. And this also explains the old famous Calvinist “THERE IS NO ONE RIGHTEOUS, NO NOT ONE”, because it is related to your explanation.
When I first studied the 7th Day Adventists, I wanted to know why they were so set in their ways of going to church on Saturday, instead of Sunday. They will deny it, but we call them legalists. They come at us with, “Well, is stealing a sin?”, “is committing adultery a sin?”, for which we will all say what they are looking for, a YES. Then they come at us with, “Well, it’s a sin to disregard the 4th commandment!”.
But here is the thing (unrelated to your conversation), Hebrews 4 tells us that we are in a perpetual 7th Day, everyday, all the time, because we are not WORKING for eternal life…we are at REST. But they don’t understand that.
WORKING is related to your conversation. What do you get when you work? Wages. But the wages of sin is death.
The Jews, under the Old Testament/Covenant are WORKING for eternal life, but they haven’t figured out that there is no way that one can work for eternal life, because no one has kept the law perfectly, except Jesus.
The Jews are too busy, WALKING ON EGG SHELLS, trying to obey the law, but fail.
The following, when I saw this, I understood the difference between Jew and Gentile (when many want to interject that there is no difference, I know that there is):
JEWS “in” the law:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
BUT NOW…
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
If we keep in mind that Abraham didn’t have the law, we might be able to see…Romans 4 is an excellent place to start.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
So, bottom line, WORKS vs. FAITH, not works (law) plus faith.
NOTE: James 2 has nothing to do with Romans 4, regarding the word WORKS. James is living, or DOING (WORKS) what you believe, by faith. Abraham was going to kill his son as a sacrifice, knowing, by faith, that God would resurrect him from the dead in order to fulfil His promise that his seed would continue thru Isaac anyway. That’s the works James 2 is discussing.
In conclusion…the word RIGHTEOUSNESS is the key word. But remember, God gave the law to Moses to give to the children of Israel. And then later, God states, and I’m paraphrasing, big time, “THROW AWAY THE LAW AND HAVE FAITH IN ME, and while you are at it, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Then you can have eternal life. The law will never get you righteousness with me!”
So this is a story between Jews and Gentiles, not Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and it’s centered around the word RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Ed Chapman
Roland used to be in your shoes as I used to believe in libertarian freewill. When I understood what is really is, ……..etc
br.d Roland – this statement serves as a red-flag that you do actually believe in LFW while you think you don’t. In Exhaustive Divine Determinism – there is no such thing as YOUR brain coming to an understanding. The process of YOUR brain coming to an understanding would require a degree of AUTONOMY for your brain – that does not exist in your belief system. The only way YOUR brain could come to an understanding is if YOUR brain were granted LFW to do so..
Here is how it works:
1) Everything that comes to pass is determined by Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world.
2) This includes every PERCEPTION that will come to pass within your brain
3) Which means – you are NOT the determiner of any PERCEPTION which comes to pass within your brain – because every PERCEPTION was already determined – at the foundation of the world – by an external mind
4) Per your statement (i.e. testimony) above – your brain once had the PERCEPTION that LFW exists for humans.
That PERCEPTION was not a product of your brain – it was determined at the foundation of the world – by an external mind.
It was determined to be the PERCEPTION that would exist in your brain by infallible decree.
5) Your brain has no power to counter an infallible decree
So the only way your brain could not have that PERCEPTION is by the THEOS determining a time in your life in which that PERCEPTION would change to a different PERCEPTION.
6) Therefore the reason you PERCEPTION changed is not because YOUR brain came to an understanding – but rather because an external mind CAUSED a different PERCEPTION to come to pass within your brain.
CONCLUSION The notion that your brain can “came to an understanding” of anything – serves as a denial of your doctrine – because it assumes a degree of autonomy for your brain – that doesn’t exist in your belief system – and also assumes LFW is available to your brain.
Pastor Loz: And the interesting thing for me about this “testimony” is how calvigod unchangeably ordained for Roland to believe in Arminianism for 8 years – all for his maximal glory, then equally unchangeably ordained for him to “come to an understanding” of calvinism, again all for his maximal glory. While at the same time unchangeably ordaining for Leighton Flowers to move in the opposite direction and to consistently and deeply critique calvinism, again all for his maximal glory. If those aren’t examples of calvigod punching himself in the face I don’t know what are :D.
But then, who are we, o men, to question calvinism?
Pastor Loz
But then, who are we, o men, to question calvinism?
roland
Another strawman as Calvinists never say this. It is a lie projected onto Calvinists because of the dishonesty of non-calvinists.
roland
Another strawman as Calvinists never say this. It is a lie projected onto Calvinists because of the dishonesty of non-calvinists.
br.d
Does a Calvinist SAY everything that Calvinist thinking assumes?
br.d
Does a Calvinist SAY everything that Calvinist thinking assumes?
roland
I don’t know, I don’t know every Calvinist.
Does anybody SAY everything they assume?
br.d
Does a Calvinist SAY everything that Calvinist thinking assumes?
roland
I don’t know, I don’t know every Calvinist.
br.d
The answer is NO and you know the answer is NO!
So here’s how it works for you:
Calvinist:
I’m thinking of a creature that quakes, has webbed feet, has a beak, and flies and swims.
Non-Calvinist
OH! So you are thinking of a Duck
Calvinist
No!
You are misrepresenting me – I never said I was thinking of a Duck!!
You are creating a straw-man!
Bottom line, Roland’s god is not sovereign because he is not allowed to give man LFW. He is not free. He must remain within the boundaries set for him for calvinists. He must exercise “his” sovereignty the way that calvinists dictate, and not in any other way.
You know what’s really hilarious to watch – is those Calvinists who claim to know the most intimate details about divine secret things.
I had one Calvinist here describe how many seconds it takes Calvin’s god to make a decision.
Some Calvinists have the power of knowing every divine secrets! :-]
What really becomes funny is where Calvin’s god always seems to dutifully obey everything every Calvinist says.
One Calvinist claims Calvin’s god does [A]
Another Calvinist claims Calvin’s god does [NOT A]
And when you point that contradiction out to both of them – they claim there is no contradiction.
I think a deity in one’s own image is every Calvinist’s spiritual inheritance! :-]
br.d
You know what’s really hilarious to watch – is those Calvinists who claim to know the most intimate details about divine secret things.
roland
Another straw man. Name me one prominent Calvinist that claims to know THE MOST INTIMATE DETAILS ABOUT DIVINE SECRET THINGS.
br.d
What really becomes funny is where Calvin’s god always seems to dutifully obey everything every Calvinist says.
One Calvinist claims Calvin’s god does [A]
Another Calvinist claims Calvin’s god does [NOT A]
roland
More straw man
br.d
You know what’s really hilarious to watch – is those Calvinists who claim to know the most intimate details about divine secret things.
roland
Another straw man. Name me one PROMINENT Calvinist that claims to know THE MOST INTIMATE DETAILS ABOUT DIVINE SECRET THINGS.
br.d
OH I SEE!
It now it has to be a PROMINENT Calvinist who says it!!
Next time it will have to be a SPECIFIC PROMINENT Calvinist who says it.
And after that – it will have to be a SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE AND PHASE OF THE MOON that Calvinist says it.
Pastor Loz is correct
You simply keep on shifting the goal-post in order to make things work for you! :-]
br.d
OH I SEE!
It now it has to be a PROMINENT Calvinist who says it!!
Next time it will have to be a SPECIFIC PROMINENT Calvinist who says it.
And after that – it will have to be a SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE AND PHASE OF THE MOON that Calvinist says it.
roland
Go back in our discussion and you will see that I have asked for quotes from PROMINENT Calvinists.
roland
Go back in our discussion and you will see that I have asked for quotes from PROMINENT Calvinists.
br.d
My statement to Pastor Loz – clearly identified Calvinists who make such claims here.
BTW:
Pretty much every Calvinist will present his version of Calvinism *AS-IF* it is the prominent one.
This becomes especially entertaining when I quote John Calvin – the father of Calvinism – and they reject his version of Calvinism :-]
Yep, one of Roland’s favourite philosophical theorists, Sproul, talks about the secret / hidden will of calvi-god. Of course even mentioning that fact must be “mis-representing”, because for Calvinists, “anything you say about my theory that I don’t like and exposes my contradictions = misrepresenting”. No surprises if Roland comes back now with, “show me a prominent Calvinist who said those exact words or you are lying”. And yeah Roland, we know Sproul didn’t call him calvi-god, but that’s who he is actually talking about.
Pastor Loz
He must remain within the boundaries set for him for calvinists. He must exercise “his” sovereignty the way that calvinists dictate, and not in any other way.
roland
Another straw man. Name me one prominent Calvinist who makes this claim about setting boundaries on God. I’ll be waiting.
roland
Another straw man. Name me one prominent Calvinist who makes this claim about setting boundaries on God. I’ll be waiting.
br.d
Do Calvinists say everything their assertions assume?
Roland seems to think then when a man is beating his wife, he should say “Wife, I am now beating you”, otherwise it is not really happening.
I can’t tell you how many times I have described a fact about Calvinism to a Calvinist which which he can’t deny
And his response is “That is not the way we say it”
EXACTLY!
That is not the way they say it – because they in fact what to hide it
And they lower themselves to even less honesty – when they work to manufacture a FALSE PICTURE to hide it behind.
And the process of crafting language designed to hide things without telling outright lies eventually serves as a sign of Calvinist efficacy. The ones who are the smooth talkers become teachers for the others.
They become a hierarchical system of smooth talkers.
This is why I suspect calvinism / deformed philosophy may well be one of satan’s proudest achievements. Subtle, convoluted, and infecting the Body of Christ for centuries.
Personally – I believe Calvinism was invented as a strategy to neutralize the bodies ability to war against principalities and powers.
Calvinism is 99% intellectual
99% of the activities of a Calvinist minister is teaching teaching forever teaching.
They have to – because if they don’t keep re-enforcing the indoctrination – Calvinist minds might start to thinking outside the box.
Pastor Loz: And the interesting thing for me about this “testimony” is how calvigod unchangeably ordained for Roland to believe in Arminianism for 8 years
br.d
BINGO!
Now think about this!
Calvin’s god decreed that Roland’s brain would have FALSE PERCEPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE for 8 years.
Was Roland’s brain permitted to DISCERN his perceptions of scripture were FALSE?
NO!
Because those FALSE PERCEPTIONS were established by infallible decree
And Roland’s brain is powerless to counter an infallible decree
CONCLUSION:
Calvin’s god does not permit Roland’s brain the epistemic ability to determine which PERCEPTIONS within his brain are FALSE.
Roland want’s to claim that he has NO AUTONOMY
And yet at the same time his brain has the AUTONOMY to discern TRUE from FALSE
Thus we have a perfect example of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS!!!
///// Roland: WHAT?!!! The father of the child has both BELIEVE AND UNBELIEF!!! /////
And thus Roland demonstrates how he does not understand the process of renewing of the mind. If he did, he would see how there is no contradiction between having a measure of faith and a measure of unbelief. Unlike the irreconcilable, unbiblical contradictions within calvinism, which are another matter altogether.
Roland said: Another straw man. Name me one prominent Calvinist who makes this claim about setting boundaries on God. I’ll be waiting.
He actually thinks Calvinists would admit to the inevitable conclusion of their philosophical theory.
Pastor Loz
He actually thinks Calvinists would admit to the inevitable conclusion of their philosophical theory.
br.d
He may at some level be aware that that argument is silly
Because Calvinists in fact are geniuses at hiding whatever logically follows in Calvinism they deem unpalatable.
Calvinist language is very much a COSMETIC language
It is not a TRUTH-TELLING language.
And the Calvinist mind is conditioned not to think in RATIONAL sequences.
His mind is taught to live in a world of carefully crafted talking-points
When I question a Calvinist I never anticipate his mind processing a reasoned answer.
99% of the time his response will be “The Calvinist says”
Because language is used to present a MASQUERADE in order to produce an acceptable appearance.
Which serves as an indicator that his system is simply a library of highly evolved talking-points.
And his mind is conditioned to ignore the fact that one talking-point is the logical contradiction of another talking-point
When that happens his brain simply goes into “See no evil” Mode.
Roland said: Another straw man. Name me one prominent Calvinist who makes this claim about setting boundaries on God. I’ll be waiting. He actually thinks Calvinists would admit to the inevitable conclusion of their philosophical theory.
Pastor Loz He actually thinks Calvinists would admit to the inevitable conclusion of their philosophical theory.
br.d He may at some level be aware that that argument is silly. Because Calvinists in fact are geniuses at hiding whatever logically follows in Calvinism they deem unpalatable. Calvinist language is very much a COSMETIC language
It is not a TRUTH-TELLING language.
PL: Typical type of dialogue from this thread:
Non-calvinist: “Calvinists put God in a box”
Calvinist: “Quote me one prominent Calvinist who says, ‘I am putting God in a box’ ”
Is it really that hard to discern between what Calvinists say, and where what they say inevitably leads?
Pastor Loz
If he did, he would see how there is no contradiction between having a measure of faith and a measure of unbelief.
roland
According to br.d and you, it is illogical for a person to believe something to be TRUE and FALSE at the same time. This is the argument you both have been making about Calvinism. According to you “God cannot be sovereign, determining everything that comes to pass by His eternal decree AND man has freewill at the same time.” This is illogical and therefore a false statement, a contradiction.
I show you a Bible verse that plainly states the man BELIEVES and has UNBELIEF. According to logic, this is a contradiction. It is two opposite ideas being held together at the SAME TIME. This is logic 101, it is not that hard to understand. Now I point this out and you say ‘there is no contradiction between having a measure of faith and a measure of unbelief”
I COMPLETELY AGREE. AGREE. AGREE WITH YOU! The Christian life is lived with the TENSION between seeking to obey God and our sinful nature that causes us to sin. It is called sanctification, being conformed to the image of Christ. I know that the man’s statement is not a contradiction, you and br.d SHOULD believe it is a contradiction because BELIEF and UNBELIEF are contradictory. I don’t subject God’s Word to logical tests to do so means that LOGIC is the INTERPRETER of whether God’s Word is true or not. This means that logic is superior to God’s Word. We use a ruler to measure things because what the ruler tells us is the true measure of an inch, or a foot, or several feet. According to br.d and you, the RULER is logic and it is used to measure God’s Word. It is the other way around, God’s Word is the RULER and it measures logic. God’s Word is the ultimate authority.
I NEVER said it was a contradiction, I said it was ACCORDING to br.d and you, according to both of your guys’ reasoning. I’ve always stated that God’s Word is the ultimate authority.
///// Roland: I show you a Bible verse that plainly states the man BELIEVES and has UNBELIEF. According to logic, this is a contradiction. /////
No, that’s my whole point. According to logic, it is NOT a contradiction. It is NOT two opposite ideas held together at the same time. That’s why I said you don’t understand the process of the renewing of the mind, or growing in faith. We don’t go from believing nothing at all regarding healing and deliverance, to instantly having complete faith and no doubt. We GROW in faith. So faith and unbelief co-exist. So you are wrong.
Pastor Loz
According to logic, it is NOT a contradiction. It is NOT two opposite ideas held together at the same time.
roland
What? BELIEF and UNBELIEF are not two opposite ideas. They don’t mean opposite? So I can have belief and unbelief and it means the SAME idea!!! If I would have written that you and br.d would have jumped all over me!!!
Pastor Loz, you are starting to sound like a CALVINIST. You know they believe that God DETERMINES all things yet man is FREE in his choices. Are you saying that two opposite ideas like DETERMINE and FREE are really the same?
Also, it sounds like you are CHANGING the meaning of words. That’s another Calvinist practice, you know they love changing the meaning of
words and MAKING UP their own meanings. 🤔🤔🤔
Pastor Loz According to logic, it is NOT a contradiction. It is NOT two opposite ideas held together at the same time.
///// roland What? BELIEF and UNBELIEF are not two opposite ideas. They don’t mean opposite? So I can have belief and unbelief and it means the SAME idea!!! If I would have written that you and br.d would have jumped all over me!!! /////
Since you conveniently left out the rest of my explanation, I will post it again, as it already deals with your point. No, that’s my whole point. According to logic, it is NOT a contradiction. It is NOT two opposite ideas held together at the same time. That’s why I said you don’t understand the process of the renewing of the mind, or growing in faith. We don’t go from believing nothing at all regarding healing and deliverance, to instantly having complete faith and no doubt. We GROW in faith. So faith and unbelief co-exist. So you are wrong.
roland
According to br.d and you, it is illogical for a person to believe something to be TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
br.d
And for the Calvinist holding things as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time – is a necessary evil.
And the reason for that is – the Calvinist’s needs to have many things both ways.
That’s why Calvinist language is called DOUBLE-SPEAK :-]
Roland
According to you “God cannot be sovereign, determining everything that comes to pass by His eternal decree AND man has freewill at the same time.”
Roland
Its about time for you to step to a higher degree of honesty on this topic!
You’ve been hiding behind the smoke-screen of a NEBULOUS term “freewill”
Is your will free from being 100% determined by an external mind?
Let your communication be YEA or NAY for anything else comes of evil.
br.d
Is your will free from being 100% determined by an external mind?
Let your communication be YEA or NAY for anything else comes of evil.
roland
No, we do not believe the our freewill is “free” from the 100% determined by God. I have answered this before but you keep moving the GOALPOSTS. First it was DETERMINED by God, its 100% DETERMINED by God, what’s next 1000% DETERMINED by God?
There, my communication has now been clear but I have a deep and experientially influenced suspicion that I will have to answer this question AGAIN!!!
br.d
Is your will free from being 100% determined by an external mind?
Let your communication be YEA or NAY for anything else comes of evil.
roland
No, we do not believe the our freewill is “free” from the 100% determined by God.
br.d
Thank you!
So we know you do NOT simply have a free will
So throwing out the term “freewill” is not entirely honest because it communicates inferences which are FALSE.
Now lets look at where your will is free
QUESTION:
Is your will free to be and do what an external mind infallibly decrees your will to be and do?
br.d
QUESTION:
Is your will free to be and do what an external mind infallibly decrees your will to be and do?
roland
Yes. I’ll repeat my answer: God has determined whatsoever comes to pass as stated in Ephesians 1 yet humans are free to make choices by exercising their will. Yes we have a freewill that is determined by God. That is going to be answer to any question related to this.
What are you trying to prove? That I’m wrong. Ok, you’ve proved it. Now what? I just abandon Calvinism, sure. Then what? Embrace libertarian freewill that is nowhere found in the Bible. NO!!!
Roland, you are free to continue believing whatever suppresses your cognitive dissonance most effectively and leaves you with the comforting illusion that men are responsible, accountable moral agents in a completely deterministic world. Whatever makes your god appear to be honest, just and holy. But you can’t say you haven’t been told.
Pastor Loz
Roland, you are free to continue believing whatever suppresses your cognitive dissonance most effectively and leaves you with the comforting illusion that men are responsible, accountable moral agents in a completely deterministic world. Whatever makes your god appear to be honest, just and holy. But you can’t say you haven’t been told.
roland
The arrogance in your statement is beyond belief. I’ve quoted you Scripture after Scripture that shows God is in control, man makes choices, man is responsible for his choices, and you call it a “cool story.”
If you are really “pastor” then you come off as an abusive, arrogant, and authoritative person. If I’m so wrong in my theology then where’s your pastoral heart and grace to guide me unto truth. You resort to insults.
I believe non-calvinists are Christians. I try to treat them as Christians, I try to avoid calling them names, I try to treat them with respect. If I ever do treat a non-calvinist wrongfully, I will seek forgiveness. I had to tell another person on this website I was sorry for the way I addressed them. Your statement is loaded with arrogance, condescending words from a condescending attitude.
“But you can’t say you haven’t been told” What does that mean? Are you implying that I am not Christian because I am a Calvinist? So in order for a sinner to be saved they must be a non-calvinist? It is not faith in Christ and repentance from sin that makes a sinner a Christian?
It goes with the crowd here. Calvinists are called heretics, demons, doctrine of Satan, the hate against Calvinists and Calvinism on this website is ridiculous. If Calvinists are so lost, where’s the grace? Where’s the heart of Christ for lost people?
Nah, you’ve quoted me Scriptures, but none of them do what you claim. And you’ve completely failed to even begin to address the numerous Scriptures I have cited. And if you don’t like the way I speak to you, take it up with the god you believe unchangeably ordained for me to say every word. Apparently I could not have done otherwise, yet a made a “Calvinistic real choice”. You know the kind I mean
br.d
QUESTION:
Is your will free to be and do what an external mind infallibly decrees your will to be and do?
roland
Yes. I’ll repeat my answer:
br.d
Ok here is what we conclude
1) You are “free” to be/do what an external mind determines you to be/do
2) You are NOT free to be/do otherwise
And permission is exactly the same
1) You are “Permitted” to be/do what an external mind determines you to be/do
2) You are NOT “Permitted” to be/do otherwise
Nothing more and nothing less is permitted.
Therefore the term “freewill” is deceptive because it hides as much as it reveals.
Therefore you are NOT the DETERMINER of any impulses, inclinations, or perceptions which come to pass within your brain.
To use language that infers you are – is to use deceptive language.
I will interpret such language as manifesting a need to deceive yourself.
br.d
Therefore the term “freewill” is deceptive because it hides as much as it reveals.
roland
Acts 17:26 And He 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,
Is Paul wrong when he preached that God has “determined their preappointed times and boundaries of their dwellings”? Did you choose to live in the city you live in? Did God also before you existed determine you to live where you do?
I say yes, God has determined my preappointed ties and boundaries of my dwellings. Yet I chose to live in the house I live, the city I live in.
br.d
Therefore the term “freewill” is deceptive because it hides as much as it reveals.
roland
Acts 17:26 ……Is Paul wrong when he preached that God has “determined their preappointed times and boundaries of their dwellings”? Did you choose to live in the city you live in? Did God also before you existed determine you to live where you do? I say yes,
br.d
Which is a complete evasion tactic
Because it in no way addresses the issue.
My statement is TRUE
And if you can allow your mind to think rationally and allow a sufficient degree of honestly – then you can acknowledge my statement is TRUE.
For a Calvinist to appeal to the term “freewill” is to HIDE the fact that your will has ZERO AUTONOMY.
And you did NOT learn the practice of using language designed do HIDE as much as it reveals from scripture.
You learned that practice from a Calvinist teacher
br.d
For a Calvinist to appeal to the term “freewill” is to HIDE the fact that your will has ZERO AUTONOMY.
roland
For ANYBODY to say that they have FULL AUTONOMY is SELF-DECEPTION!
Do you REALLY believe that your LIBERTARIAN FREEWILL is AUTONOMOUS? Do you really believe that EVERY choice you make has NO influence from outside of yourself? Every decision you make is of your freewill? There is nothing outside of yourself that would compel you to act in a certain way?
You are denying the innate attributes or character of the human body, mind, and soul. Every choice we make has SOME influence from outside of ourself. Every human has a nature that at least influences their decisions.
That’s self-deception and it is what Eve went for in the Garden of Eden when the serpent told her, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Since man fell in the Garden of Eden he has only strived to be his own god, autonomous, free, sovereign, etc.
br.d
For a Calvinist to appeal to the term “freewill” is to HIDE the fact that your will has ZERO AUTONOMY.
roland
For ANYBODY to say that they have FULL AUTONOMY is SELF-DECEPTION!
br.d
Are you telling us – you don’t know the difference between ZERO and FULL?
How do I get the feeling I’m chasing a greased pig! :-]
Do you have ZERO AUTONOMY or not???
Let your communication be YEA or NAY – for anything else comes of evil
br.d
Are you telling us – you don’t know the difference between ZERO and FULL?
How do I get the feeling I’m chasing a greased pig! :-]
Do you have ZERO AUTONOMY or not???
Let your communication be YEA or NAY – for anything else comes of evil
roland
Yes I know the difference between ZERO and FULL.
If you mean autonomy in the biblical sense of auto nomas, as in a law unto themselves, then NO I do not have zero autonomy. Paul wrote in Romans 2 that everybody has a law over them, either God’s written law or the law written on their hearts and consciences. Yes, I do have autonomy in the biblical sense.
If you mean in the secular sense of autonomy, as in self-governing, self-freedom, self-governing, yes I have ZERO AUTONOMY as defined by secular thought.
roland
If you mean autonomy in the biblical sense of auto nomas, as in a law unto themselves, then NO I do not have zero autonomy. Paul wrote in Romans 2 that everybody has a law over them, either God’s written law or the law written on their hearts and consciences. Yes, I do have autonomy in the biblical sense.
If you mean in the secular sense of autonomy, as in self-governing, self-freedom, self-governing, yes I have ZERO AUTONOMY as defined by secular thought.
br.d
That is hillarious!
I just got done a conversation with a different Calvinist – who insists there is NO HUMAN AUTONOMY in any SENSE
He disagrees with you – so one of you must be wrong
Autonomy – from the Greek autonomia = “independence”
Abstract noun from autonomos “independent” = living by one’s own laws
So the “law written on your heart and conscience” is INDEPENDENT from what Calvin’s god determines it to be?
br.d
That is hillarious!
I just got done a conversation with a different Calvinist – who insists there is NO HUMAN AUTONOMY in any SENSE
He disagrees with you – so one of you must be wrong
roland
I’m quoting Paul who is arguing against the idea that Gentiles are without God’s written law. Paul writes in Romans 2 that they are not without a law but they are a law unto themselves. Paul is arguing that they are NOT AUTONOMOUS in the sense that they are SELF-GOVERNING but in the sense that they are AUTONOMOUS in that they possess a law within, their CONSCIENCE is their law.
br.d
So the “law written on your heart and conscience” is INDEPENDENT from what Calvin’s god determines it to be?
roland
No because Paul writes that law is written on their hearts. It is in their conscience. The source of the law written on the heart and conscience is God.
Romans 2:12-16
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
I doubt the Calvinists you speaking with disagrees with me unless he has a different idea of what Paul is writing in Romans 2. Which I would like to hear his reasoning as what I wrote is an interpretation that is common in Calvinism.
br.d
That is hillarious!
I just got done a conversation with a different Calvinist – who insists there is NO HUMAN AUTONOMY in any SENSE
He disagrees with you – so one of you must be wrong
roland
I’m quoting Paul who is arguing against the idea that Gentiles are without God’s written law….
br.d
And that is YOUR interpretation of Paul.
And the other Calvinist disagrees and insists there is NO AUTONOMY in any SENSE.
You both can’t be right
So one of you must be wrong.
So the “law written on your heart and conscience” is INDEPENDENT from what Calvin’s god determines it to be?
roland
No
Because Paul writes that law is written on their hearts. It is in their conscience. The source of the law written on the heart and conscience is God.
br.d
Therefore there is NO INDEPENDENCE from what is determined.
You have not made one statement that PROVES any degree of HUMAN AUTONOMY.from what is determined.
Where is it????
It’s interesting how calvigod meticulously predetermined his own acolytes to be unable to get their story straight between them.
It’s interesting how calvigod unchangeably ordained the majority of Christians not to believe in him.
It’s interesting how calvigod meticulously predetermined for many of his followers to turn away from him and follow Yahweh, the true God of the Bible.
It’s interesting how calvigod PREFERS the vast majority of humans to continue in their sin and to hate him, all for his maximal glory.
So many ways that calvigod punches himself in the face.
It is hilarious isn’t it!!
If they would just let go of Exhaustive Divine Determinism – they wouldn’t be force into DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
And they wouldn’t be forced into an interpretation the depicts a god who deceives people into believing falsehoods.
But of course – if they give up Exhaustive Divine Determinism – then they would have to step down off their is nothing unique that distinguishes them as SPECIAL SUPER Christians with their SUPER Apostle John Calvin.
But then they have no more bragging rights! :-]
br.d
Therefore there is NO INDEPENDENCE from what is determined.
You have not made one statement that PROVES any degree of HUMAN AUTONOMY.from what is determined.
Where is it????
roland
I don’t recall making that claim. When did I write that humans are autonomous?
I believe we are autonomous in the sense that Paul is writing in Romans 2. I don’t believe humans are autonomous in the sense of secular thought as in independent. I think this is what I already wrote to you.
br.d
Therefore there is NO INDEPENDENCE from what is determined.
You have not made one statement that PROVES any degree of HUMAN AUTONOMY.from what is determined.
Where is it????
roland
I don’t recall making that claim. When did I write that humans are autonomous?
br.d
You claimed there is a “biblical” autonomy which humans have – and there is a “secular” autonomy which humans do not have.
Where is there any AUTONOMY from that which is infallibly decreed – which BTW is everything?
br.d
Where is there any AUTONOMY from that which is infallibly decreed – which BTW is everything?
roland
I’ve quoted the chapters two times already. Final time, please read Romans 1 and 2 where Paul writes about humans being a law unto themselves.
br.d
Where is there any AUTONOMY from that which is infallibly decreed – which BTW is everything?
roland
I’ve quoted the chapters two times already. Final time, please read Romans 1 and 2 where Paul writes about humans being a law unto themselves.
br.d
That’s not going to fly!
You can’t just throw out random verses and leave it at that
You need to PROVE your claim
But you don’t have any proof do you????
br.d
Therefore there is NO INDEPENDENCE from what is determined.
You have not made one statement that PROVES any degree of HUMAN AUTONOMY.from what is determined.
Where is it????
roland
It is written in Romans 2. I’ve written that there is a secular sense in which the word autonomy is used and there is the biblical Pauline sense of the concept of autonomy.
I’ve never claimed that there is human autonomy independent from God. I am not trying to prove that to you. Why would I prove something that I don’t believe in? That’s like you trying to prove God’s sovereignty when you don’t believe in it.
Roland
I’ve never claimed that there is human autonomy independent from God
br.d
So in your “biblical” SENSE of autonomy – what is man AUTONOMOUS from?
Roland
Why would I prove something that I don’t believe in? That’s like you trying to prove God’s sovereignty when you don’t believe in it.
br.d
Roland – now its your turn to comply with your own bogus standard
Name one prominent non-Calvinist who says he does not believe in god’s sovereignty
If you can’t do that – then you misrepresent the non-Calvinist
Perhaps you have a quote from Dr. Flowers that says “We do not believe in god’s sovereignty”
Good luck meeting your own bogus standard! :;-D
So God’s law is written on the hearts of totally depraved spiritual corpses. LOL.
So that they can have a Calvinistic NON-Autonomous Autonomy!
It is pretty funny isn’t it! 😀
I think the Calvinist brain is so captured by Calvinist DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – its requires supernatural deliverance to get un-snared.
Defo with you there Br D, since Calvinism is a doctrine of demons, I believe Calvinists often need deliverance. I did work with one lady in that scenario. At one point she was suicidal because she thought she might not actually be one of the elect cosmic lottery winners.
That would make perfect sense for her to think that – since Calvin himself declares Calvin’s god specifically gives a FALSE SENSE of salvation to a -quote HUGE MIXTURE of Calvinists – and then later – quote “Strikes them with greater blindness”.
There is another X-Calvinist who is a PHD – and I am currently catching up on his transition out of Calvinism
He was a staunch Calvinist working for his PHD in college.
Someone he respected highly introduced him to a need that people have coping with trauma
He got really interested in that field of study and it was then that he started coming face-to-face with Calvinism’s effect on human trauma.
Here he is in 2018 on Youtube
The title is: Is “New Calvinism” a Theological Rip-Off?
In this video he reviews what scholarship acknowledges about Calvinism predicated on Augustine.
He reviews Augustine’s dilemma – reconciling the Manichaean system of divine providence – which eventually becomes the Calvinist system of divine providence.
Augustine tries to resolve Manichaean providence with how it makes god the author of evil – and turns humans into functional robots.
Augustine – according to scholarship – never resolves the issue.
He simply flip-flops back and forth – trying to have it both ways – maximal divine providence and human autonomy at the same time
Calvin – in his love afar with all things Augustine – walks right into the same ditch and gets captured there.
In this video you will see this X-Calvinist reading John Calvin’s summation of human free will
Calvin says:
-quote
Both in doing and obtaining, we SEEM to act from free choice.
In this way then, man is SAID to have free will, not because he has a free choice, of good and evil
But because he acts….not by compulsion.
And then Calvin says:
-quote
And therefore if WE do good, when WE PLEASE, then WE can also refrain from doing it.
If WE commit evil, WE can also shun the commission of it.
As this PHD is reading these two utterly contradicting statements from Calvin – he looks into the camera and declares it DOUBLE-SPEAK
So here we have one more person in academia who acknowledges – Calvinism is a form of entrenched DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
This PHD doesn’t know it at the time he is making the video – but his video serves as a record of his transition out of Calvinism.
br.d
Here he is in 2018 on Youtube
The title is: Is “New Calvinism” a Theological Rip-Off?
roland
I just watched the video. I was interested in what he had to say about Augustine and Calvin. Here’s my quick take on what the guy in the video is saying. I’m not sure if it is Dr. Paul Maxwell or not as I don’t recall the speaker ever identify himself as such. He does speak about his dissertation advisor or something like that.
Here’s my quick take after just watching: basically, the speaker in the video is describing two men, Augustine and Calvin, trying to understand what God is revealing to us in Scripture. Augustine and Calvin are trying to understand how God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill can function together.
Augustine and Calvin are both finite men. As a Reformed Christian I draw from them what is good and avoid what is not good. I also agree with the speaker that there is a slide in which we are trying to understand how all this work: God’s sovereignty, man’s freewill, theodicy, etc.c
Here’s where I think the speaker makes a fundamental mistake: he seems not to allow for discovery of God’s truth or revelation of an understanding of God’s truth. He speaks and argues as if finite man can understand everything as God has revealed it to us. He fails to allow for grace as Augustine and Calvin seek to understand God, providence, God’s sovereignty, man’s freewill, theodicy, etc.
Roland
he seems not to allow for discovery of God’s truth or revelation of an understanding of God’s truth.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
He doesn’t rely on MAGICAL thinking! :-]
You didn’t capture much of the nuance of it probably because you’re not familiar with academia’s historical research on Augustine
He named a number of Augustinian scholars – who pretty much agree that Augustine was caught between the Manechaean notion of divine providence (which evolves into the Calvinist notion of divine providence) and the Pelagian notion of free will.
Augustine in his debates with the Manechean’s relies on the church’s historic position of LFW
But then Augustine comes up against Pelagius
And Pelagius uses Augustine’s arguments of LFW against the Manechaean’s against him
Augustine is frustrated by this and can’t find any other way to defeat Pelagius – except rely on the Manechaean position he had fought against.
So Augustine argues for LFW to defeat the Manechaeans
And then abandons LFW and uses the Manechaean position against Pelagius
In the end – Augustine was unable to reconcile the contradiction between a form of providence that is so extreme that it makes god the author of evil ( Which Calvin clearly states) and it also makes man’s functionality robotic.
Augustinian scholars acknowledge that Augustine’s way of dealing with it was to try and have it both ways.
So he ends up being DOUBLE-MINDED about it.
Maxwell then reads two quotes from Calvin which contain the same exact contradictions.
And that is why Maxwell looks into the camera and says Calvin is speaking DOUBLE-SPEAK
br.d
You didn’t capture much of the nuance of it probably because you’re not familiar with academia’s historical research on Augustine
roland
True, I am not familiar with academia’s historical research on Augustine. It is why I watched the video. I have read Augustine’s Confessions and The City of God. That’s about as I am familiar with Augustine.
br.d
He named a number of Augustinian scholars – who pretty much agree that Augustine was caught between the Manechaean notion of divine providence (which evolves into the Calvinist notion of divine providence) and the Pelagian notion of free will.
roland
I got that, I heard him naming Augustine scholars. I also heard him speak about Augustine’s struggle with Manechaean and Pelagian.
br.d
Augustine is frustrated by this and can’t find any other way to defeat Pelagius – except rely on the Manechaean position he had fought against
roland
I get it. This is where I believe Dr. Maxwell doesn’t allow for some grace because Augustine is a finite man.
br.d
In the end – Augustine was unable to reconcile the contradiction between a form of providence that is so extreme that it makes god the author of evil ( Which Calvin clearly states) and it also makes man’s functionality robotic.
roland
Again, this is my personal opinion, we, finite man, struggle to understand these deep truths of God. I credit Augustine and Calvin for trying. They’ve contribute FAR MORE than I ever will to the discussion that God is sovereign and man is free.
br.d
Augustinian scholars acknowledge that Augustine’s way of dealing with it was to try and have it both ways.
So he ends up being DOUBLE-MINDED about it.
roland
Again, can we give Augustine some grace and draw truth from his insights?
br.d
Maxwell then reads two quotes from Calvin which contain the same exact contradictions.
And that is why Maxwell looks into the camera and says Calvin is speaking DOUBLE-SPEAK
roland
Calvin is a finite man trying to reconcile biblical truths that seem irreconcilable.
roland
Again, this is my personal opinion, we, finite man, struggle to understand these deep truths of God. I credit Augustine and Calvin for trying. They’ve contribute FAR MORE than I ever will to the discussion that God is sovereign and man is free.
br.d
Well what you call FAR MORE – is what Scholars call syncretism
Augustine has a friend who he corresponds with – who praises Augustine who always speaks of Plotinus, Jesus and Paul
Plotinus was Augustine’s adopted mentor
Plotinus was a Hellenistic philosopher of the platonic tradition – who converted the doctrines of Plato into a religion.
Augustine gets is “City of god” by plagiarism – from Plato’s “City state”.
Plato is the father of the doctrine if DDI (Doctrine of Divine Immutability) which Augustine synchronizes into Catholic doctrine
Neoplatonism became widely influential at around the 3rd century A.D. and persisted until shortly after the closing of Plato’s Academy in Athens at around 520 A.D.
Sparks Notes:
“Augustine’s lasting influence lies largely in his success in combining the Neoplatonic worldview with the Christian one. In Augustine’s hybrid system, the idea that all creation is good in as much as it exists, means that all creation, no matter how evil, has its existence only in God.”
Certain central tenets of Neoplatonism served as a philosophical interim for the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo on his journey from dualistic Manichaeism to Christianity (Confessions Summary and Analysis of Book VII — A Neoplatonic Quest)
br.d
He got really interested in that field of study and it was then that he started coming face-to-face with Calvinism’s effect on human trauma.
Here he is in 2018 on Youtube
The title is: Is “New Calvinism” a Theological Rip-Off?
roland
I don’t remember hearing him speak about “human trauma” in the 2018 Youtube video: “New Calvinism” a theological rip-off?
Did I miss something or is the “human trauma” from another video?
Its part of the book he wrote:
The Trauma of Doctrine: New Calvinism, Religious Abuse, and the Experience of God
br.d
Its part of the book he wrote:
The Trauma of Doctrine: New Calvinism, Religious Abuse, and the Experience of God
roland
Whoa!!! $50 for the kindle edition. Out of my budget! I was hoping to read it and gain a better understanding of Dr. Maxwell’s ideas and thoughts. Interesting that Vanhoozer wrote the foreword!
One of the reviews says that Dr. Maxwell is no longer a Christian. Is that true? I’m asking because you might know.
That is very common for books coming out of academia
Some of William Lane Craigs books sell for up to $150
br.d
Its part of the book he wrote:
The Trauma of Doctrine: New Calvinism, Religious Abuse, and the Experience of God
roland
Never mind just read an article where he said he is no longer a Christian.
I think that has to do with the business of trauma.
I think its temporary.
The god of scripture is self sacrificing
The god of Calvin is is self serving
Once the love of god washes works its way back into his heart – he’ll fall in love with Jesus again.
But he won’t have the burden of Calvinism’s system of good-evil.
//// Br D That would make perfect sense for her to think that – since Calvin himself declares Calvin’s god specifically gives a FALSE SENSE of salvation to a -quote HUGE MIXTURE of Calvinists – and then later – quote “Strikes them with greater blindness”. ////
What a sick little puppy calvinism’s god is! I have had Calvinists deny this aspect of “evanescent grace” because they haven’t even read what he wrote properly.
Pastor Loz
I have had Calvinists deny this aspect of “evanescent grace” because they haven’t even read what he wrote properly.
br.d
Right!
So you take Calvinism’s doctrine of “evanescent grace” and couple it with Calvinism’s doctrine of the “invisible church” along with the Calvinism’s doctrine of the “wheat and the chaff” – and what do you get:
1) NO CERTAINTY of election in this life-time for any Calvinist
2) The majority of Calvinists are NON-ELECT and divinely deceived with a FALSE SENSE of election/salvation
3) The majority of Calvinists are created/designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure
4) The majority of Calvinists are TOTALLY DEPRAVED – deceived into perceiving themselves as vessels of truth
Calvinists are so blessed to have all that! 😀
HAVING FUN WITH THE EPISTEMIC CONSEQUENCES OF CALVINISM’S DOCTRINE
1) Whatsoever comes to pass is infallibly decreed
2) Thus every FALSE PERCEPTION which exists in the Calvinist brain exists by infallible decree
3) Now if the Calvinist brain were to discern a FALSE PERCEPTION – it would no longer be a FALSE PERCEPTION.
4) And since all FALSE PERCEPTIONS are established by infallible decree – then the Calvinist brain cannot be permitted to discern any FALSE PERCEPTIONS – at pain of falsifying the infallible decree which established them.
5) Which means every FALSE PERCEPTION established within their brains – they are not permitted to discern
6) Which means the Calvinist mind cannot differentiate FALSE PERCEPTIONS from TRUE PERCEPTIONS
7) And since discernment of TRUE from FALSE on any matter – is totally reliant upon one’s PERCEPTIONS – it logically follows they are not permitted to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Now you are not going to get any Calvinist to acknowledge that according to the doctrine he is not permitted to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter!
So in order to assume his brain is permitted the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – the Calvinist is forced to treat his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
Thus the very response the Calvinist’s has to his doctrine – serves as a witness – to a FALSE doctrine.
Now that is FUN! :-]
br.d
Right!
So you take Calvinism’s doctrine of “evanescent grace” and couple it with Calvinism’s doctrine of the “invisible church” along with the Calvinism’s doctrine of the “wheat and the chaff” – and what do you get:
1) NO CERTAINTY of election in this life-time for any Calvinist
2) The majority of Calvinists are NON-ELECT and divinely deceived with a FALSE SENSE of election/salvation
3) The majority of Calvinists are created/designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure
4) The majority of Calvinists are TOTALLY DEPRAVED – deceived into perceiving themselves as vessels of truth
roland
Pastor Loz and you are having quite the back and forth with the straw man!
/// roland: Pastor Loz and you are having quite the back and forth with the straw man! ///
Do you disagree with Calvin on his doctrine of “evanescent grace”? If you do, which one of you should we take to be the true calvinist?
roland
Pastor Loz and you are having quite the back and forth with the straw man!
br.d
Just because you refuse to acknowledge a circle has a diameter – doesn’t make someone else acknowledging it – a straw-man :-]
Pastor Loz
since Calvinism is a doctrine of demons,
roland
Which doctrine of Calvinism is demonic? Is it the part where we deny God? Is it the doctrine where we deny the deity of Christ? Is it the doctrine where we deny the Trinity? Salvation by grace alone? Justification by faith alone? Scripture as the sole authority for the Christian life?
I’m just curious because I’ve never read in church history about Calvinism being condemned as demonic or heretical.
Pastor Loz since Calvinism is a doctrine of demons,
//// roland Which doctrine of Calvinism is demonic? Is it the part where we deny God? Is it the doctrine where we deny the deity of Christ? Is it the doctrine where we deny the Trinity? Salvation by grace alone? Justification by faith alone? Scripture as the sole authority for the Christian life? ////
1. The part where you blaspheme God’s holiness
2. The part where you deny God’s integrity
3. The part where you demean God’s sovereignty
4. The part where you diminish God’s love
5. The part where you reduce God’s omnsicience
6. The part where you deny God’s justice
I think those are the main aspects.
Pastor Loz
1. The part where you blaspheme God’s holiness
2. The part where you deny God’s integrity
3. The part where you demean God’s sovereignty
4. The part where you diminish God’s love
5. The part where you reduce God’s omnsicience
6. The part where you deny God’s justice
I think those are the main aspects.
roland
more straw man as Calvinism does none of those thing. According to your interpretation of Calvinism it does but not according to us.
Pastor Loz
1. The part where you blaspheme God’s holiness
2. The part where you deny God’s integrity
3. The part where you demean God’s sovereignty
4. The part where you diminish God’s love
5. The part where you reduce God’s omnsicience
6. The part where you deny God’s justice
I think those are the main aspects.
/// roland more straw man as Calvinism does none of those thing. According to your interpretation of Calvinism it does but not according to us.///
Calvinist: “Anything anyone says about my philosophy which I don’t like is a straw man”
Pastor Loz
So God’s law is written on the hearts of totally depraved spiritual corpses. LOL.
roland
Yes!!! According to Paul as it is written in Romans 2:12-15 take note of verses 14-15
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
This is called natural law. It is the biblical doctrine that God wrote the law of God on the hearts of all people, not in a particular manner so that they would obey, in a manner that leaves them without excuse. That is Paul’s point in Romans 2. Here Paul is teaching that condemnation has come upon all Jew (those with the law, because they do not completely obey it) and Gentile (those without law, yet Gentiles are without excuse because the law is written on their hearts, it is shown because by nature they do the things in the law).
Do you disagree with Paul?
Hey Roland
I’m still waiting for you to answer the question – concerning what you called “Biblical human autonomy”
You’ve stated that it doesn’t mean “Autonomy from Calvin’s god”
What exactly is it autonomy from?
br.d
What exactly is it autonomy from?
roland
My answer is found in Romans 2. Paul writes that the Gentiles are a law unto themselves. I wrote that their is a sense in which the Bible speaks of autonomy, a law unto yourself, as Paul wrote. But this is not the secular sense of being “self-governing” or being free from external control or influence; independence. The Bible doesn’t use autonomy in this sense but in the sense that Paul uses it in Romans 2.
Read Romans 2. That is biblical “autonomy.” The bible never teaches that humans are free from external control or influence, or that we are independent. That’s a secular idea, not a biblical idea.
So now I’m asking the question for the 3rd time.
According to ******YOUR***** belief system – what exactly is it that autonomy from?
br.d
So now I’m asking the question for the 3rd time.
According to ******YOUR***** belief system – what exactly is it that autonomy from?
roland
So I’m answering for the third time. My answer is found in Romans 2, I believe what Paul wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit (God) to write it. See my previous post as I don’t have any other answer than to believe that God teaches us the those without the written law are a law unto themselves.
MY belief system is the BIBLE!!! I BELIEVE THE BIBLE!!!
br.d
This will be your last chance
You either answer the question – or everyone knows you are blowing smoke.
And don’t point me to a scripture verse *AS-IF* that verse AUTO-MAGICALLY says whatever you claim it says.
That is NOT answering the question
According to ******YOUR***** belief system – what exactly is it that autonomy from?
br.d
This will be your last chance
You either answer the question – or everyone knows you are blowing smoke
roland
My conscience is clean. If you want to believe that by appealing to the plain reading of Scripture is “blowing smoke.” I’m okay with that and if ALL the readers of my post come to the same conclusion as yours, I’m ok with that to. I’m appealing to the highest authority I know: God’s Word.
br.d
According to ******YOUR***** belief system – what exactly is it that autonomy from?
roland
After having been renewed by the Spirit of God from my fallen depraved nature, I discarded MY FORMER BELIEF SYSTEM and ADOPTED GOD’S BELIEF SYSTEM; HIS WORD.
You remind me of an atheist I once worked with. He told me one day that ALL Christians are hypocrites. I asked why. He said because we don’t follow what we believe. I agree with him. I told him as a Christian I do struggle to obey God. But then I told him this: Christians have not created their own moral belief system, we have ADOPTED God’s moral belief system, it is an EXTERNAL belief system. Since it is not my own, it’s hard to follow it. I then told him that it is easy to obey YOUR OWN belief system. When a person can MAKE UP or CREATE their own belief system, then it is easy to follow; IT’S YOURS. But when you ADOPT another person’s belief system, it is their’s, you don’t get to set the rules of the system.
Call it “blowing smoke” if you want but I have adopted what God says in His Word as MY BELIEF SYSTEM.
roland
Call it “blowing smoke”
br.d
Cuz everyone can easily see – you didn’t answer the question – so that’s exactly what it is!
roland
if you want but I have adopted what God says in His Word as MY BELIEF SYSTEM.
br.d
It was a simple question
But you chose to keep the answer obfuscated behind a smoke screen of ambiguity.
Its called evading the light.
And I know why! :-]
br.d
Its called evading the light.
And I know why! :-]
roland
I’m okay with that, my conscience is clean let the readers be the judge of my statements and answers. I’ve rested on the truth of God’s revelation that I am not concerned if man judges me to be in error.
br.d
Its called evading the light.
And I know why! :-]
roland
I’m okay with that, my conscience is clean
br.d
I understand that totally
It goes along with the other pattern of Calvinists misleading people with duplicitous language – which is not a sin in Calvinism
br.d
And don’t point me to a scripture verse *AS-IF* that verse AUTO-MAGICALLY says whatever you claim it says.
That is NOT answering the question
roland
So if I make a claim by Scripture, and you believe that the Scripture I quote is not in accordance with my claim, then YOU NEED TO SHOW WHY MY CLAIM IS FALSE.
In other words, HOW DO YOU READ IT???
roland
So if I make a claim by Scripture, and you believe that the Scripture I quote is not in accordance with my claim, then YOU NEED TO SHOW WHY MY CLAIM IS FALSE.
br.d
This is called shifting the burden of proof.
The party making a argument has the burden of proof to justify it.
Shifting the burden of proof occurs when that party holds the other party responsible for proving the argument false.
The problem is – the argument has not SUCCESSFULLY been proven to be TRUE
So there is nothing to prove FALSE
It was a simple question – which you could not answer.
So you tried to hide it behind a smoke-screen of virtue signaling.
And I know why! :-]
br.d
This is called shifting the burden of proof.
roland
WRONG!!! This is called EVADING THE QUESTION!!! Nice try bee are dee!
br.d
This is called shifting the burden of proof.
roland
WRONG!!! This is called EVADING THE QUESTION!!! Nice try bee are dee!
br.d
Correct!
You evaded a very simple question
And I know why! :-]
br.d
I will interpret such language as manifesting a need to deceive yourself.
roland
What do you I gain out of this “NEED TO DECEIVE” myself?
roland
What do you I gain out of this “NEED TO DECEIVE” myself?
br.d
Remember the discussion we had about the girl whose boyfriend was beating her?
1) She was lying to herself
2) She was communicating those same things to others
3) She had no EXPRESS intention to deceive others – never the less her mind was captured – and she communicated things that were simply not TRUE
Below is an extract from James White’s open letter to John Ankerberg, which shows how White speaks AS IF Calvinism is untrue. What possible damage could Caner do to apologetics? Will a single one of the elect not be irresistibly brought to salvation as a result of Caner’s words? In any event, God unchangeably predetermined every word that Caner said. What a self-defeating philosophy,
the damage to Christian apologetics done by Ergun Caner’s deceptions is far reaching. I have spoken to Muslims and, when mentioning someone who came to Christ out of Islam, they have smiled, laughed, and said, “Oh, like Ergun Caner?” He is a watchword amongst them for deception and dishonesty. Further, his shallow approach to this vital subject has become a laughingstock amongst Muslim apologists, and for good reason. Sadly, for reasons that are completely political in nature, men like Norman Geisler have defended Caner
Responding to Leighton’s article directly, I just thought I’d mention my reaction to being frustrated by the world: Psalms 37 and 73. Basically, the Bible tells us to understand the end of sinners. They are on the Highway to Hell (this is Matt 7 discernment, not Matt 7 judgement).
Determinists are so inconsistent with the Bible, I am not sure how they would react to this. I don’t think any Christian should be blaming non-Christians for how messed up this world is, but, someone who claims to be a Christian should be using every ounce of God’s power to make this world a better place (eg Gk. agapao). If not, Paul, James, Peter and esp. John all say they are not of us.
Most of my ministry is to pretty hardened souls, those incarcerated and homeless. I tell them they don’t have to be believe, but the Bible says that all humanity will be judged by Jesus. To put it as close as possible to Determinism, I was predestined to tell them of their eternal destiny. But of course, they have the Free Will to change, or not. I usually mention Proverbs 1:7 and Isaiah 1:18, but those would not be top picks for a Determinist. Throw in Universalism, and you make an impossible mess of the Bible.
So I’m learning not to get frustrated with the world. Sinners can’t really get this without (Prevenient?) Grace. It’s our job to preach it.
Eric,
I get your point. However, keep the following in mind. First, those you preach to must believe in an afterlife. IF they don’t, then they can’t exactly believe in God. Plant the seed, and dust your feet. Someone else may come to water.
Now, I don’t believe in prevenient grace, or irresistible grace. To do so would be to admit that I believe in original sin. I don’t.
However:
Study 1 Cor 15:42-46 very closely, realizing that we are made of dirt, and Adam was going to die anyway, whether he ate of the tree of Good and Evil or not. Then go to Romans 2:14-16 that tells us that God wrote his laws in our hearts a long time ago. Our hearts already knows that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. And no one ever had to tell us that. God put that in our soul already. When you have guilt, you know you did something wrong. Approach it that way, maybe. Then consider the following:
Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Romans 8:25
But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Making the world a Better Place???? Hmmmmm. Love thy neighbor as thyself isn’t sufficient? Should we plant a tree?
1 Corinthians 15:19
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
Colossians 3:1
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Colossians 3:2
Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1 Corinthians 5:11-13 Easy-to-Read Version
11 I meant you must not associate with people who claim to be believers but continue to live in sin. Don’t even eat with a brother or sister who sins sexually, is greedy, worships idols, abuses others with insults, gets drunk, or cheats people.
12-13 It is not my business to judge those who are not part of the group of believers. God will judge them, but you must judge those who are part of your group. The Scriptures say, “Make the evil person leave your group.”
Roland said, “when it comes to middle knowledge, non-calvinist are saying BECAUSE there are some hypothetical situations in Scripture MEANS that all situations are hypothetical. This is the non-calvinist argument. The double standard is that non-calvinists believe it is okay for them to reason from SOME choices being hypothetical to ALL choices being hypothetical.”
Are you saying that all non-calvinists, not just Molinists, are arguing that “all situations are hypothetical”? Because if you are, then you are completely wrong. The fact that Jesus knew what Tyre, Sidon, Gomorrah would have done in different circumstances is not speculation. It’s a Biblical fact that shows God knows things He has not decreed. He knows things that did not happen. Thus disproving the claim of Calvin and many calvinists that God only knows things because he decreed them. Acknowledging that Jesus knew this about Tyre and Sidon does not require a Molinist perspective. Nor does it require a belief that every situation is hypothetical.
Roland
The double standard is that non-calvinists believe it is okay for them to reason from SOME choices being hypothetical to
br.d
What Roland is describing – is called the fallacy of composition.
What is TRUE of one part – must be TRUE of the whole
Thus – if the tires in my car are made out of rubber – it follows the WHOLE car must be made out of rubber.
The irony of Roland’s assertion – is that it *IS* in fact how the Calvinist derives EXHAUSTIVE divine determinism from scripture.
But it is *NOT* a non-Calvinist form of reasoning.
Every NON-Calvinist accepts the fact that *MANY* things in life are outside of human control – and thus must be predetermined.
The earth orbiting around the sun
The day of a person’s birth
The color of a person’s eyes
The force of gravity
So *NO* Non-Calvinist falls into that fallacy of reasoning.
Roland claims the Tyre, Sidon + Gomorrah hypothetical is irrelevant, because those miracles did not occur. Here is why it is completely relevant to the point under discussion – the scope of God’s knowledge:
1. Calvinists say God decrees everything that happens, therefore if something does NOT happen, it is because God DID NOT DECREE IT.
2. Thus if Tyre, Sidon, Gomorrah did not repent, it is because God DID NOT DECREE them to repent.
3. Calvinists also say that God ONLY knows things BECAUSE He decreed them
4. If God did not decree Tyre, Sidon, Gomorrah to repent, then in Calvinism, He could not know that they would have repented under different circumstances, and Jesus was either mistaken or lying when He claimed to know what they would have done.
The biblical alternative:
1. God decrees SOME things that happen
2. God knows the things He has decreed AND the things He has not decreed. His knowledge is not dependent upon His decree
3. Therefore, God knows things that WOULD have happened, if circumstances had been different
4. Therefore, Jesus knew that Tyre, Sidon and Gomorrah would have done, in different circumstances.
Pastor Loz
Are you saying that all non-calvinists, not just Molinists, are arguing that “all situations are hypothetical”?
roland
I don’t believe I wrote “all non-calvinists.” If I did, I was writing out of haste and not paying attention. Not all non-calvinists are Molinists. I know there are Arminian, Molinist, and open theists views of God’s knowledge, foreknowledge.So, no I am not saying all.
Pastor Loz
Thus disproving the claim of Calvin and many calvinists that God only knows things because he decreed them.
roland
Here’s a quote from Calvin regarding God’s foreknowledge. From what I have read regarding your posts and God’s foreknowledge, your view seems close to Calvin’s.
“When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that everything has always been, and forever remains, in his full view, so that in terms of his knowledge there is nothing which is either future or past. Instead, all things are present to him – so present indeed that he does not see them, as it were, as mental images, as we do who need imagination to make more or less visible the things preserved in our memory. God observes and beholds them just as they are, as if they were actually before him. We affirm that this foreknowledge covers the whole wide world and with it every creature.”
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion 1541 Edition. Banner of Truth Trust, 2016.
Pastor Loz
He knows things that did not happen.
roland
True. But the things never happened. So, they were never decreed. I don’t deny that Scripture teaches that God knows things COULD happen. I agree, it is a biblical fact. It is also a biblical fact that they never happened. It is also a biblical fact that God has declared the beginning from the end. He knows all things not because He learned them but because He has always known them, as per Calvin above.
Pastor Loz
Acknowledging that Jesus knew this about Tyre and Sidon does not require a Molinist perspective. Nor does it require a belief that every situation is hypothetical.
roland
It was not my intention to convey that Tyre and Sidon requires a Molinist perspective. Nor was it my intention to convey that ALL NON-CALVINISTS are Molinists. However, Tyre and Sidon are some of the biblical facts that Molinists use to prove middle knowledge. My argument is that Molinists take the biblical data that show God knows what could have happened, such as Tyre and Sidon, and reason from these to argue that these events show that God knows all possible events. I’ve heard William Lane Craig make this argument.
Roland
“When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that everything has always been, and forever remains, in his full view, so that in terms of his knowledge there is nothing which is either future or past.
br.d
You till have a problem of *SELF-CANCELING* problem that you have not solved.
Here is the principle:
A) If [X] has *ALWAYS* been TRUE
B) Then [X] can *NEVER* be other than TRUE
For example:
A) If Calvin’s god has *ALWAYS* been divine
B) Then Calvin’s god can *NEVER* be other than divine
CONSEQUENTLY:
1) If infallible foreknowledge of what [X] will be has *ALWAYS* been – then [X] can *NEVER* be OTHER than what it was foreknown to be.
2) Where [X] can *NEVER* be OTHER than what is foreknown – then there is *NO CHOICE* in what [X] will be.
In other words – infallibly foreknowledge which has *ALWAYS* been – *CANCELS* the option of choice.
So you divine foreknowledge which infallibly *CANCELS* the option of choice.
You want to have it both ways.
You want to have foreknowledge of what [X] will be – which has *ALWAYS* been
But you also want a choice – prior to creation – of what [X] will or will not be.
One of these *CANCELS* the other.
You have to make up your mind – which one you want.
MAGIC is the only way – you can *CANCEL* something – and have it at the same time :-]
br.d
One of these *CANCELS* the other.
roland
It doesn’t necessarily follow that one cancels the other. God doesn’t experience time as we do. He is not bound by time. We are. We as humans perceive time as past, present and future. When Calvin writes about God’s foreknowledge he is saying that everything in time is before God as if it has always been. God’s foreknowledge is our perception of what God already knew from eternity past but what is revealed to us in His Word as future.
I’m not going to deny God His freedom to choose as He pleases. Neither will I say that God is bound to make choices because of the options set before Him. That is what it sounds like you are arguing.
Are you saying that God choosing to create is only a true choice because He could have had the option to choose to not to create? If God did not have to option to choose not to create, then when He created, He was FORCED to create?
roland
It doesn’t necessarily follow that one cancels the other. God doesn’t experience time as we do.
br.d
Let’s use that as a premise
1) Calvin’s god has *ALWAYS* been divine
2) But it doesn’t necessarily follow that Calvin’s god has *ALWAYS* been divine – because he doesn’t experience time as we do.
MAGIC is such a wonderful thing! :-]
Now you’re just trolling me by taking my statements and putting them into syllogisms to make me look silly.
What do you get out of doing that? Are you trying to show me that I’m wrong? Are you trying to show that I’m STUPID and don’t know how to think?
I’m failing to perceive your purpose as I don’t believe you want to have a serious dialogue.
Roland
Now you’re just trolling me by taking my statements and putting them into syllogisms to make me look silly.
br.d
One of the purposes of Syllogisms is to show when someones thinking is *SELF-CANCELING*
To have something within a belief system – which that belief system *CANCELS* – is called MAGICAL thinking
Roland: Here’s a quote from Calvin regarding God’s foreknowledge. From what I have read regarding your posts and God’s foreknowledge, your view seems close to Calvin’s.
“When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that everything has always been, and forever remains, in his full view, so that in terms of his knowledge there is nothing which is either future or past. Instead, all things are present to him – so present indeed that he does not see them, as it were, as mental images, as we do who need imagination to make more or less visible the things preserved in our memory. God observes and beholds them just as they are, as if they were actually before him. We affirm that this foreknowledge covers the whole wide world and with it every creature.” Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion 1541 Edition. Banner of Truth Trust, 2016.
Pastor Loz: He knows things that did not happen.
Roland: True. But the things never happened. So, they were never decreed.
Therefore, God knows things He did not decree.
Roland: I don’t deny that Scripture teaches that God knows things COULD happen. I agree, it is a biblical fact. It is also a biblical fact that they never happened. It is also a biblical fact that God has declared the beginning from the end. He knows all things not because He learned them but because He has always known them, as per Calvin above.
Pastor Loz: And I have consistently argued that God does not learn, because He has always known them. And as Calvin himself said in what you quoted, He observes. That in no way necessitates God to have decreed everything He knows. His knowledge is not dependent upon His decree. If it was, then it could be argued that God’s foreknowledge followed His decree. And that would mean that before His decree, God did not know those things. Which would mean there was a point before His decree when He was not omniscient.
Roland: It was not my intention to convey that Tyre and Sidon requires a Molinist perspective. Nor was it my intention to convey that ALL NON-CALVINISTS are Molinists. However, Tyre and Sidon are some of the biblical facts that Molinists use to prove middle knowledge. My argument is that Molinists take the biblical data that show God knows what could have happened, such as Tyre and Sidon, and reason from these to argue that these events show that God knows all possible events. I’ve heard William Lane Craig make this argument.
Pastor Loz: Regardless of what Molinists may argue, and on what basis, I am not arguing from a Molinist perspective.
A couple of simple questions for you Roland:
1. Is God omnitemporal, simultaneously present at all points in time, or is He limited to moving through time in a linear sequence as humans do?
2. Is God CAPABLE of knowing what a person will freely choose? Could He create a universe where the ability for humans to make a genuine choice between accepting or rejecting the gift of salvation, and know what each person would choose?
Hello Pastor Loz:
1. Yes, God is omnitemporal. I hope there has never been any confusion as to what I believe about God and time. He is outside of time. He does not experience time as humans do in a sense of past, present and future.
2. Yes, God is capable of knowing what a person will freely choose. Yes, He could create such a universe and know what each person would choose.
Maybe you are getting to this but I am having trouble understanding the relevance of possible worlds.
I am glad we at least seem to be on the same page regarding God’s omnitemporality. That is one basis on which I believe God is able to know LFW choices, since He is already there at the point when the choice is made, and in fact after the choice is made. That is why He does not learn, since He has always seen and known every choice.
Regarding question 2, if you acknowledge that God has that capability, I am not sure why you would argue as you did earlier that God cannot foreknow free-will choices. If you don’t recall saying that I can find the quote from you.
Pastor Loz
Regarding question 2, if you acknowledge that God has that capability, I am not sure why you would argue as you did earlier that God cannot foreknow free-will choices. If you don’t recall saying that I can find the quote from you.
roland
Yes, I believe God foreknows (I mean He knows the choice we will make before we make it) our future choices. God does not experience our choices as past, future, and present (He’s omnitemporal). I agree with your statement. However, we experience our futures within the limits of time. When we come to that point in the future, which when we make the choice becomes the present (as we experience time), then at the time we make the choice it must be according to what God foreknows or else God’s foreknowledge can be invalidated if we make a choice contrary to His foreknowledge. I would reject the idea that our choices are libertarian in nature if God perfectly foreknows our choices.
If God foreknows x human choice, then x human choice.
If God foreknows x human choice, then NOT x human choice, God’s foreknowledge is invalid.
Hopefully that’s clear, thanks for reading.
Roland
I believe God foreknows (I mean He knows the choice we will make before we make it) our future choices.
br.d
An excellent representation of the Arminian conception of foreknowledge.
–
Calvin’s god foreknows the impulse that will come to pass within the human brain – simply because he AUTHORED that impulse in the form of a decree.
–
A.W. Pink
-quote
God foreknows what will be because he decrees what will be. (The attributes of god)
–
Paul Helms
-quote
His foreknowledge is simply his knowledge of what he has decreed.(Divine Foreknowledge – Four Views pg 12)
–
John Calvin
He foresees future events *ONLY* in consequence of his decree (Institutes Vol ii. p. 169.)
–
No infallible decree for a specific impulse within the Calvinist brain = no impulse in the Calvinist brain! :-]
I was asked if God foreknows our choices. The answer as a Calvinist is yes. Your post did not prove nothing it just showed what I believe. The question was not asked HOW God foreknows our choices.
br.d
An excellent representation of the Arminian conception of foreknowledge.
–
However – Calvin’s god foreknows the impulse that will come to pass within the human brain – simply because he AUTHORED that impulse…
–
Roland
I was asked if God foreknows……… The question was not asked HOW God foreknows…..
–
br.d
And HOW does Calvin’s god foreknow?
You already agreed that God IS able to foreknow LFW choices. Therefore acknowledging there is no necessary conflict between God’s foreknowledge and LFW. However to lay things out clearly, I will use an example.
1. I am going out of the house in an hour’s time.
2. In my wardrobe I have two shirts. A blue shirt and a white shirt.
3. I can genuinely choose between putting on the blue shirt or white shirt, right up to the point where I actually put one of them on.
4. I choose to put on the blue shirt at 2.00pm. At that point, I have FIXED that choice. I cannot unmake that choice.
5. God, being omnitemporal, has always been present at 2.00pm today, and has always known that I would choose, freely, to put on the blue shirt.
6. His foreknowledge did not determine which shirt I would choose. His foreknowledge REFLECTED the shirt I would choose. He did not LEARN what shirt I would choose as He always knew.
7. It was me choosing the blue shirt that ruled out me choosing the white shirt.
8. If could have chosen the white shirt, just as freely, and God would have perfectly known that I would have chosen the white shirt. His foreknowledge of that choice would likewise have reflected, not determined that I would do so.
9. God’s CERTAINTY about which shirt I would choose, did not make that choice NECESSARY.
It’s ironic that Calvinists actually share the same mental blockage as Open Theists on this point.
br.d
Nice detailing of the characteristics of a Libertarian Choice Pastor Loz!
–
You probably already know – the Calvinist (As a Determinist) is forced to adopt a pattern of *AS-IF* thinking.
1) Assert [X] as TRUE – while treating [X] *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Or conversely
2) Assert [Y] as FALSE – while treating [Y] *AS-IF* it is TRUE
–
Dr. Craig explains:
-quote
“William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Even determinists recognize that they have to act *AS-IF* they have option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable)”-
–
Atheist Determinist Theoretical Physicist Sean Carroll
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
–
John Calvin
-quote
Each ought to so apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.
(Eternal Predestination pg171)-
–
So the Calvinist – as a Determinist – and because a person cannot live coherently with Determinism – and at the same time retain a sense of human normalcy – is forced to exist in a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
–
1) He holds the doctrine of decrees as TRUE
2) But in order to retain a sense of human normalcy- he must treat the doctrine of decrees *AS-IF* it is FALSE
3) He holds Libertarian Choice as FALSE
4) But in order to retain a sense of human normalcy – he goes about each day making moment-by-moment Libertarian Choices
5) He claims Libertarian Choice does not exist – while assuming he is granted Libertarian choices
6) In order to assume his brain is granted the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter – he is forced to block all thoughts within his mind concerning the fact that do to so would entail a Libertarian Choice between TRUE and FALSE.
–
In is no wonder a Calvinist will claim his belief system is misunderstood.
His belief system is DOUBLE-MINDED.
For the non-Determinists in the room:
I was just remembering something I realized long ago. Like we say in Evangelical circles, the HS is a gentleman. We can easily quench the Spirit. Otherwise, it is like possession. All of our choices are made for us.
Biblically, we see some pretty harsh stuff coming from possession. I work in jails and shelters a lot, and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. But I have talked to several guys that say they’ve been possessed, and they seem credible to me. Exorcism makes no sense to a Determinist if it is just a sign for others to believe, or even strengthen their faith. And why be so cruel to put the possessed through that in the first place?
So it seems Determinists must have more than just two categories (saved and damned). There would have to be Spirit-Led, Saved, Unsaved and Possessed. Seems like a lot of levels of Determinism there. Doesn’t seem Biblical. To a Determinist it is very credible: our choices are in the middle (Saved or Unsaved).
My point is, God must have set some boundaries about what He allows. I think all non-Determinists would agree that it would be an abomination if God “Possessed” us with the Spirit. It must be a choice. Why would He allow us to quench the Spirit? Why would He leave if we did not make unGodly choices? Likewise, being possessed by a demon or the devil himself is a corruption of being filled with the HS.
I see this from a legal/moral Job 1-2 courtroom perspective. God is playing fair with us, and even with Lucifer. We can choose to stay close to God and stay safe (eg Prov 1:7), even be Spirit-Led, or risk falling very far into demon possession.
is this helpful? Has anybody else been thinking this way?
Hello Eric – nice post!
–
Here is one interesting point you made:
Eric
I think all non-Determinists would agree that it would be an abomination if God “Possessed” us with the Spirit. It must be a choice.
–
br.d
This is where the Calvinist has a serious problem.
Because – according to the standard definition of the term “Choice” – and what how scripture depicts “Choice” – a necessary condition for it – is the existence and availability of more than one option – in order to constitute what people understand and what scripture means by a “Choice”.
–
Take for example – “Choose you this day whom you will serve. Either serve God and worship him, or serve Baal and worship him”
–
If EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (aka Calvinism) is TRUE – then the God of creation never grants any impulse within the human brain – to be otherwise – than what he decreed it to infallibly be.
–
In such case – humans are not granted a “Choice” in the matter of any impulse that will come to pass within their brains – and they are not granted any alternative impulse, and they are not granted any other option.
–
So in Calvinism – if a the impulse to perform serve and worship Baal is decreed to infallibly exist within the human brain – then no other impulse is granted existence within that human brain.
–
Suffice to say – there is no such thing as “Choice” granted to humans in Calvinism.
What is granted to humans – are impulses which are decreed to infallibly come to pass – which humans are given NO CHOICE in the matter of and no ability to refrain from.
–
If that isn’t a “Form” of possession – I don’t know what is.
Yes Br. D, if I read that correctly then I think we are in agreement. You helped me condense and bring the logic along a little further:
Exhaustive Divine Determinism = HS Possession = Blasphemy of the HS
I can hardly even bear to say this, but it means:
– Jesus was possessed
– Jesus was never really tempted, so He could never have sinned, so He wasn’t our forerunner, so if we haven’t got His power by now there is little point in trying
– the athiests have it right when they say Christians are begging to become robots (b/c it should be admitted that the best Determinists strive for status), and the Satanists are right when they say their beliefs are just another valid form of possession
– the Day of Pentecost is better described as the Day of the Triffids (or some other B-Grade Hollywood movie, or, or oh yeah that time Spock got blasted with the happy flower and did nothing for anyone else but himself… 😉
There is nothing about true agape here – it’s all just a sick, cynical, supernatural power play. OK, yeah that sounds familiar.
I think there’s a big HS problem for Determinists. Maybe some of them have found wiggle room in the last 500 years. Probably have then come to the conclusion that their response is EXTREMELY WEAK, so it’s best just to hide Determinism from the average churchgoer. Begs the question tho, why don’t the Young, Restless and Reformed “get it” and keep it to themselves? They’re messing up the traditional gravy train, since the traditionals are losing more people than they are ever going to gain with new converts.
And who cares if the laity is frustrated. Their job is just to keep worshipping the Heirarchy (actually Lowerarchy) and put money in the coffers.
Sorry Br. D, maybe you shouldn’t have encouraged me 🙂
br.d
For me – we can’t attribute what logically follows for humans to Jesus – because Jesus is fully God and fully man.
That which I described would logically follow for all created things- because in Calvinism – all created things are exhaustively determined. Every object including creatures represents an arrangement of atoms which were brought into existence – and some of those atoms have electrical charges (what people call protons for example) and the arrangement and movement of those electrical charges is likewise meticulously determined. Thus every impulse within the human brain is determined.
But since Jesus was not created as a part of creation – but rather existed before creation – then that determinism would not apply to him. But it certainly would apply to all Calvinists. No matter how much they won’t like it! 😀
Also – I would ask you to be a little more careful with language.
I’ll go back and remove the part in your last post that would not reflect well at SOT101
Thanks!
Pastor Loz: “You already agreed that God IS able to foreknow LFW choices. Therefore acknowledging there is no necessary conflict between God’s foreknowledge and LFW….”
Thank you for laying out your example. This is how I see things too. I especially like this part: “8. If could have chosen the white shirt, just as freely, and God would have perfectly known that I would have chosen the white shirt. His foreknowledge of that choice would likewise have reflected, not determined that I would do so. 9. God’s CERTAINTY about which shirt I would choose, did not make that choice NECESSARY.”
That’s how I see it. People think the fact that God foreknew our choice locks us into that choice before we make it. But if we chose something else, then God would have foreknown that we would have made a different decision. His foreknowledge doesn’t lock us in or mean that He “causes” us to make that decision; it just means He knew what we would choose (and how He’d work it into His plans). But if we chose something else, He would have known that too (and how to work it into His plans). It’s not that hard to understand. It’s only hard if we conflate His foreknowledge with causation/determination.
Roland also wrote: “Another result of libertarian freewill is that it denies God’s foreknowledge. In verse 19 God says He is sure that Egypt will not let Israel you go. Under a system of libertarian freewill God CANNOT know this because Pharaoh’s decision is free. Either God really knows what Pharaoh will do or He doesn’t know what Pharaoh will do because of his libertarian free choice.”
Not only is this as big a straw-man as you can possibly find, it also reveals what an incredibly low, diminished view of God calvinists like Roland have. Their god is so lacking in omniscience that he CANNOT know, is INCAPABLE of knowing, what one of his creatures will freely choose. And yet Roland offers absolutely no substantiation as to why his god is so lacking in this respect. But it is good to see his admission of his god’s deficiency in black and white. He said it folks. His god CANNOT.
My God – Yahweh, is SO OMNISICENT that He IS capable of foreknowing not only what He has decreed, not only what His own direct actions will be, but EVERY choice that His creatures will freely make. Not to mention all the hypotheticals / counter-factuals which never occurred, which He never decreed, but which He knows what they would have been.
Roland’s view of God is anthropomorphic because his god is like a human being, limited to moving through time in a linear fashion, hence unable to foreknow what people will freely choose. Yahweh, besides being inherently omniscient in and of Himself, not dependent upon His decree or any other factor, is omnitemporal. This is an attribute of God that Roland doesn’t appear to understand, or possibly even have heard of. And he isn’t the only calvinist whose knowledge of God is limited in this way.
Roland also wrote: “Another result of libertarian freewill is that it denies God’s foreknowledge”
br.d
This is another confirmation – that in Calvinism – humans are not granted the function of “CHOICE”
The example we used for Roland a while ago – was of him having to take a Bible exam in which he was required to answer a TRUE – FALSE question.
Per Calvinism – if Roland’s brain is granted the ability to “CHOOSE” between TRUE and FALSE concerning the Bible question – then Calvin’s god cannot “Foreknow” in advance – what Roland will choose.
In order for Calvin’s god to “Foreknow” what perception will come to pass within Roland’s brain – Calvin’s god has to DETERMINE – and thus make the “Choice” *FOR* Roland’s brain.
In Calvinism – the process of making a “CHOICE” between TRUE and FALSE – is classified as a CONTRARY choice – and does not exist for the Calvinist.
Therefore – in Calvinism – the function of “CHOICE” is not granted to humans
In Calvinism – humans are not granted a “CHOICE” in the matter of anything.
br.d
Calvin’s god has to DETERMINE – and thus make the “Choice” *FOR* Roland’s brain.
roland
God does not make our choices for us. Humans make their own choices. We are not robots nor puppets.
Roland,
I guess you were absent for the 413 weeks that Romans 9 was taught in Calvinist church’s, huh? You are a Calvinist. What part of Calvinism do you not understand?
In Calvinism, you are indeed a puppet, a robot. In Calvinism, God wrote a play, and you are the actor. You just had better hope that you are nominated for an Academy Award for your performance of YOURSELF! Screenplay by God. Director, God. Producer, God.
Ed Chapman
Hello Ed,
Thanks for responding to my assertion that humans, created in the image of God, are not puppets nor robots. And yes! I did miss the 413 weeks of Romans 9. I’ll answer as best I can. First, the Bible nowhere states that we are God’s puppets nor His robots. I reject that charge on the basis of God’s Word. Second, I would direct to Guillaume Bignon’s book Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil. In chapter 1 he addresses the charge from incompatibilists that Calvinism teaches we are robots or puppets. He is much smarter than I am, so I would direct to him as I agree with his argument.
Thanks for reading.
Roland,
I really don’t care what Guillaume Bignon has to say on the subject. You are the Calvinist. Defend Calvin.
If what Guillaume Bignon is to be believed, then THAT ISN’T CALVINISM. Is it?
How many versions of Calvinism is there? Does John Calvin know of all the Splinter groups that he never taught?
So, which Calvinism are you?
Ed Chapman
Hello Ed,
I agree that there are many different versions of Calvinism. As precise as I can try to be I’m still going to fail in conveying a precision into what type of Calvinist I am. I will tell you this. I am in agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechism. I am also in general agreement with the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. I do not believe that a person must fully subscribe to the confessions and catechisms. I believe they are summary of what most Reformed Christians believe. If you would like to get a better understand of where I am coming from as a Calvinist I would recommend reading the Westminster Confession of Faith, then the Larger Catechism, and finally the Shorter Catechism.
Thanks for reading, Roland.
Roland,
Thank you for your reply. I find that your reply is very nice and cordial, and polite. That’s unusual for a calvinist. What’s up with that? Haha! But, as a non calvinist, I’m not as nice… lol.
Here is my reply,
I don’t let catechism or “confessions” speak FOR me. You say that you are in agreement with the westminster blah blah…
Me, I form an opinion on the word of God only.
I can’t, under good conscience, let other people from 600 years ago dictate what I’m to believe.
I have to form my own opinion.
I have a saying…
In a denomination, they search the commentaries daily to see if the Bible is right.
In a non-denomination, we search the scriptures daily to see if the commentaries are right.
But, your comment indicates that you are not following John Calvin, but a modified version of what others brought to the table. And I’m wondering how all of the modified version can even be classified as calvinism?
Ed Chapman
Great point Ed, that you state below;
“In a denomination, they search the commentaries daily to see if the Bible is right.
In a non-denomination, we search the scriptures daily to see if the commentaries are right.”
This statement is exactly what the current Bible study I’m in did yesterday and does often they look to the commentaries. This seems to not only cloud all discussion it often shuts down the discussion —as if this man’s opinion is the end of discussion… & unfortunately the main go to commentary of the teacher yesterday is/was MacArthur.. So your saying is spot on!! Thank you🌻
Reggie,
You are very welcome. When I first got into debating with various denominations, I had noticed a trend that just never sat with me very well. John MacArthur is a great example. I remember seeing John MacArthur for my very first time on CNN’s Larry King Live discussing religious matters. At this point of my life, I had never known any such sect of Christianity known as Calvinism. I was pretty ignorant back then. But he said some things that I said to myself, “I don’t believe that!”.
My first time noticing things like that when I first debated a Catholic, and he kept telling me about what so-and-so said. That frustrated me, because I wanted to know what HE thinks, not what someone else thinks. But he refused to think on his own.
It wasn’t until years later that I finally figured out that our communion isn’t the same as their Catholic communion. And in even our communion, I learned that our communion isn’t what the communion chapter is even discussing. Paul was using the Last Supper as an example of how to have manners at the [after church service banquet] dinner table in an orderly and polite fashion, but we turned it into an ordained ritual during church service, and turning the word “unworthily” into a completely different context than what was intended.
These are the kinds of things that happen when you don’t think for yourself, and just listen to rules from a meeting that you were not invited to, and never got the memo for.
Atheists have fun with the phrase against us that we don’t think for ourselves.
Ed Chapman
Reggie
unfortunately the main go to commentary of the teacher yesterday is/was MacArthur
–
br.d
The double irony of that – is that MacArthur is NOT a scholar – and he does not have a commentary
A commentary is a product of an credentialed expert on the subject – typically an expert on the original language.
John MacArthur is a pastor
Interesting this is great information that i actually did not know about MacArthur thank you Br.d —i like Ed when MacArthur spoke i just didn’t agree with things he was saying, so i didn’t give him much of my time… Plus he always seems a bit arrogant… you both are great watchman on the wall😊
Hello Ed,
Thanks for the kind comment despite our differences. If God has been kind and gracious to me, as much as I can believe it, then I should be kind and gracious to others.
Ed
And I’m wondering how all of the modified version can even be classified as calvinism?
roland
Calvinism has definitely been modified over the centuries. All Calvinists would have some basic beliefs such as God’s sovereignty over all creation, He governs all creation by His providence, He has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and the fives points or historically the Canons of Dort. Historically Calvinists have been confessional as in holding to one of the Reformed historical confessions.
Many modern day Calvinist are not confessional. John MacArthur, perhaps, the most famous Calvinist in America is not confessional. His church, seminary, and university do not confess any of the historical Reformed confessions. MacArthur may be in agreement with historical Reformed confession on some things but not all such as ecclesiology and eschatology. He really differs from historical Reformed orthodoxy on these two points.
Thanks for reading.
Roland
He has decreed whatsoever comes to pass
–
br.d
Is 100% of whatsoever will come to pass?
Or does he leave some percentage of whatsoever will come to pass undetermined?
How many times have you asked me this? Then proceeded with a syllogism to prove whatever it is you want to prove.
Roland
He has decreed whatsoever comes to pass
–
br.d
100% of whatsoever will come to pass?
Or does he leave some percentage of whatsoever will come to pass undetermined?
–
Roland
How many times have you asked me this? Then proceeded with a syllogism to prove whatever it is you want to prove.
–
br.d
The Lord loves honesty
So does Calvin’s god leave any percentage of whatsoever comes to pass undetermined?
roland
God does not make our choices for us. Humans make their own choices
br.d
What the Calvinist is doing here – is using the word “Choice” as a replacement word for “IMPULSE” or “INCLINATION”
1) The standard definition for the term “Choice” contains a *NECESSARY CONDITION* of more than one option available – in order to constitute what people understand as having a “Choice”
2) Per the doctrine of decrees – for every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
1) The Calvinist is NOT granted the function of “Choice”
What the Calvinist is granted are infallibly decreed “IMPULSES”
And he is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what those IMPULSES will be – and NO ability to refrain.
The doctrine of decrees *EXCLUDES* that NECESSARY CONDITION – because there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which has been infallibly decreed.
If Calvin’s god decrees – Adam will infallibly eat the fruit – then NO ALTERNATIVE is granted to Adam.
CONCLUSION
No Option(S) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
Roland: “Calvinism has definitely been modified over the centuries.”
Honest question: If Calvinism is supposedly based on what God clearly said in Scripture, why the need to modify it over time?
Heather
If Calvinism is supposedly based on what God clearly said in Scripture, why the need to modify it over time?
Hello Heather,
Modifications to any paradigm is usually done in opposition to other paradigms. As new challenges arise, then answers or modifications need to be given. Take for example the Canons of Dort. The Canons were not written to propose a new doctrine but they were written to counter the Remonstrants and affirm and articulate in a clearer manner what the Dutch churches believed. Due to our human nature, our understanding of ideas, concepts, beliefs, do have to be modified from time to time. I hope that answers your question. By the way I’m not ignoring your question regarding counseling. I’ll get to it.
Thanks for reading.
Roland
Modifications to any paradigm……
–
br.d
I like that description!
Yes – I can see how Calvinism is a modified paradigm
Roland, thanks for answering. I can see where you’re coming from and it makes sense.
You said: “By the way I’m not ignoring your question regarding counseling. I’ll get to it.”
You’ll have to remind me what question that was. I’m not sure what I wrote and when. Thanks.